> From: Florin Coras <[email protected]>
> Wouldn't it be better to have ITRs store the Map-Servers .. instead of
> the mappings?
I'm not sure it would buy you that much, because you're still facing a
minimum of an RTT to the/an authoritative mapping-server, to get a new copy
of the mapping.
I'm not sure how much larger the response-time would be if one went through
the full mapping cycle (i.e. starting from scratch), but _iff_ speed-of-light
delays are the primary component (as they are today, with the minimal
processing delays in the switches), then if the path through the resolution
hierarchy (since any resolution system other than 'every mapping server has
the entire mapping table' is going to be organized as a hierarchy) is not
_too_ far off from the optimal path to the authoritative mapping-server,
the single direct RTT should not be that much less.
On top of that, there's a bit more complexity, because you also have to deal
with the situation where the cached mapping-server is no longer the
authoritative mapping-server for that identifier.
It would be interesting to know if anyone has measured RTTs from any deployed
mapping systems, to see if my total guess (in the paragraph above) about
'stretch' in the mapping system is correct.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
