Hi Heiner, Thanks for your advice. I didn't fully catch your idea but i will try to answer your questions inline.
>Sun Letong, >your proposal shows that the strong belief in mapping doesn't crumble at all. I didn't think that mappings should be all in blocks (is that what you mean?) and be not crumbled, i just think that edge address being allocated individually, especially in tomorrow's IPv6 scene is rather rare. So the vast block mappings would make mapping table size to be happily smaller. >Speaking in analogy once more, I have tried - in vain - to convince people that a routable namespace a la Manhattan, New >York is better than using a non-routable namespace where you depend on >mapping. In New York you can progress towards your destination without asking people at each junction of avenue and street. > Do you mean that to put the detailed address as well as the rough (city level, or larger) address all in a packet? Or, it is like geo-based routing? While i consider that very persuasive, i doubt its deployability. Would current users change their address, especially in such a large scale? Trying to solve the problem indirectly, i.e. using mapping, would be more applicable. >Besides that the scalability problem could indeed become a non-issue (for ever), it strikes me that the inherent capabilities of geographical coordinates-based routing wrt IP mobility aren't appreciated >neither by Nokia nor Ericsson folks. > Sorry i didn't catch your last sentence. >Good luck for your proposal > >Heiner Best Regards, Letong
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
