Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
* If you want to keep host granularity stuff out of the map database,
you have to encode it in the address
What do you mean? Encode the AS in the address? For N > 1 this
requires that you can dynamically do a "reachable match first" lookup
in your routing tables.
Yes, this is correct.
However, several of the LISP designs already separate out the "live"
reachability from "mostly unchanging" mapping information.
So, this is not a *new* requirement, nor is it unique to this concept.
And yes, having the reachability info scale better than the population
of any numbering system, is important - and possible.
So, there are three possibilities for host granularity:
* No host granularity
* mapping size 10^11 (not suitable for push)
* special case for N=2 only
We already have MIP so no host granualirity would be a completely
reasonable choice.
MIP only supports EID host granularity, if there is a "home agent"
numbered from EID space.
This doesn't provide any way for a site that doesn't already have EIDs
available without going through the process of acquiring EIDs, managing
an MIP router, etc.
I.e., not something non-technical folks can do, so it doesn't scale very
well from a global perspective.
Not that having lots of work for semi-technical IT folks is necessarily
a bad thing - I'd just rather it be something that is fundamentally
incapable of being engineered out of the solution space.
I see MIP as orthogonal to LISP, rather than a way of "enhancing" what
LISP provides. Using MIP for non-mobile entities is just a bad design
choice, IMHO.
Brian Dickson
--
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
