> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Olivier Bonaventure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 发送时间: 2008年3月20日 11:17 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > 抄送: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Routing Research Group' > 主题: Re: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity > > Xu, > >>> The identifier to locator mapping function should support mapping > > entries > >>> for both host identifiers and their aggregates. > >> For scalability reasons, I would propose to define this requirement as > >> follows : > >> > >> The identifier to locator mapping function MUST support mapping entries > >> for aggregates of identifiers. It MAY also support mapping entries for > >> host identifiers. > > > > Hi Tony and Olivier, > > > > Does this requirement imply that the identifier must be a hierarchical label > > (not flat label) so as to be aggregatable? > > I don't think that a hierarchy is necessary. What is required is a > mapping system that deals with blocks of identifiers and not with > individual identifiers.
Hi Olivier, Let's take an example, can the host identifier (flat label) in HIP or i3 meet the above requirement of the mapping system? 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
