> > With support of routing aggregation at any desired level, I can't > > image that > > GIRO alone can do much help in routing scalability issue unless it > > brings in > > some id/locator split idea, like GSE, SIX/ONE or HRA. > > - as you can see from the talk slides, yes the basic idea IS to > separate edge prefixes from transit routing space > > - to the specific question of whether aggregation alone > (by AS and then location) can help much with routing scalability: > (a) it can indeed help a lot based on the analysis using today's > routing table content > (b) but if we want the global routing system to scale *independently* > from the edge user site growth, then the separation becomes > necessary. > > The reason I referred to the 2nd paper is merely to show the benefit > of including location info in address; not sure where you got the > implication of no-split.
Aha, I see the benefit of including location info in address. I'm just interested in what's the best choice of integrating this GRIO with a kind of id/loc split idea. Best wishes, Xiaohu XU -- 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
