On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But is that the point? I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be able to
map
EIDs as long as /128. I'm suggesting that these will be a small
minority,
and that the size of the map is likely to be in the 10^8 range at
most, since
most of the entries will be sites (for some definition of "site", but
on average, significantly larger than a single household).
A fair point, but I would certainly be more comfortable knowing that
the mapping subsystem was designed to deal with the worst case load
rather than simply the expected load.
Something about half-inch gusset plates on bridges comes to mind... ;-(
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
