Noel Chiappa wrote:
However, you are correct that if we want to support things like a certain rate of change in identity->location bindings, the mapping system has to be designed to handle that. I think the question is not so much 'can we build a system that supports a given rate of change in bindings', or 'can we build a system in which after a binding change, the change is propogated to everyone who has a copy of that binding'. The question really is 'can we meet a given desired performance target with an acceptable level of cost'. There's no way to answer that without actually designing the mapping system in detail, though.
And, to be even more explicit, we only have one good example of such a mapping system: DNS. We've seen that it does scale, and, for the most part works reasonably reliably at its job. It does have some drawbacks (attacks of the root servers, cache corruption issues, low update rate, lack of DNSSec deployment, etc.), but it does serve as proof of concept to say that there is probably SOME mapping system that we can construct that has some reasonable set of properties. Perhaps not perfect, but then, what is?
Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
