Dear Dae Young, Me too I failed to understand how ILNP solves the scalability issue. This is not analysed in the three ILNP drafts neither in the recommendations document edited by Tony. I suggested to Tony in the past to have more analysis text on this point.
The ILNP draft does not specify how to implement INLP in IPv4 environments. Only a L32 is defined in the DNS ILNP draft. BTW, I'm not sure if the scalability issue can be solved in a PI scheme. Cheers, Med -----Message d'origine----- De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Dae Young KIM Envoyé : mercredi 26 mai 2010 13:47 À : RRG Objet : [rrg] ILNP q1: Scalability Hi, Now that the decision is made for ILNP and there's not yet the ILNP WG formed, would it yet be appropriate to raise some questions in regard to ILNP to facilitate better and clearer understanding of the technology? Although some previous responses have been sometimes something like 'you read the draft', to some slow people like me, there still remain curiosities not to be cleared only out of the given text. Or the text is too long to know where to find the answer. As long as this is a research group(RG), I'd assume there'd be some room for pedagogical purposes, I'd hope. So, could anyone bother to give some comments to my following line of thoughts, please? o I understand the granularity of the Locator is a subnet. o As seen from outside of a given site, the effective granularity of the Locators stemming out is a site, for all such Locators will eventually be aggregated to a number representing the very site in a single entry in the IDR router table. o Even with the current Internet, the whole network prefixes belonging to a well-behaved site would be aggregated to a single shorter prefix representing the very site in a single entry in the IDR router table. (.. except for some multi-homed hosts inside the site.) Then, here's the question: Q1: What is the gain of ILNP over the current system in terms of its effectiveness in reducing the IDR table size? Perhaps, so obvious for the author or pros, but not to me at the moment, yet. -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ******************************** _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
