On 2008-04-10 17:54, Michael Meisel wrote: ... > I think we should ask this question in terms of the problems we are > trying to solve. As we all know, one of these problems is the frequency > of BGP updates today, which are largely coming from edge network. To put > it a different way, the problem is that the reachability information for > even the smallest of edge networks is announced globally. Each update > requires a significant amount of processing by each node that it passes > through. So the mapping system better not suffer from this same problem, > or we haven't done any good! > > So, specifically, we should be asking: > > (1) Is the mapping function successful in preventing edge network > reachability from being propagated into the global routing system? > > (2) If yes, does it do so without simply moving the problem to the > global mapping system? > > Note that proposals that both (a) put reachability information into the > mapping system and (b) involve any sort of push model start to look a > lot like BGP, and therefore are going to have a hard time answering > "yes" to (2) convincingly.
I can't say how much I agree with this. If the mapping system degenerates into a reachability-driven routing system, we might just as well switch to two layers of BGP immediately. I would suggest turning this into a concrete goal, such as: <strawman> The update rate in the mapping system should be at least two orders of magnitude less than the update rate in the BGP4 system, at any point in time. </strawman> Brian -- 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
