On Jan 9, 2008, at 2:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Can we clarify that conceptually we are talking about prefixes and not
individual interface EIDs, as far as the full map goes?
(Except, presumably, for a few special cases such as root servers.)
Well, this should spark some useful discussion... ;-)
Sorry, no, I don't think that you can make that assumption without a
lot more justification and/or consensus building. There are large
organizations (you used to work for one of them, I believe ;-) where
there are multiple Internet connections that have geographically
widely dispersed contact points. Optimal routing implies that there
will be different locator preferences for different hosts. Mobility
within the organization itself implies that creating and maintaining
meaningful identifier prefixes is going to prove challenging.
In other words, I think that we need host level granularity in the
mapping function.
I *don't* think that we need per-interface granularity, as the
semantics of an identifier should be host-specific, not identifier
specific.
Tony
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
