> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 代表 Jari Arkko > 发送时间: 2008年7月23日 22:18 > 收件人: Dino Farinacci > 抄送: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'RJ Atkinson'; 'IRTF Routing RG' > 主题: Re: [RRG] IEEE EUI-64 as an Identifier format > > Dino, > > > However, you get zero aggregation of ID space with EUI-64 assignments. > > Not good for a mapping database. > > Yes. But I suspect that wishes about the aggregatability of the ID space > are similar to past wishes about aggregatability of addresses. I.e., > wishes that do not necessarily become true. > > Note that aggregation of the ID space can come in two ways: ability to > map range of IDs belonging to an organization vs. ability map an > individual host's ID. I would suggest that we need the former. The > latter would replace current scalability and aggregation problems with > different scalability and aggregation problems.
Besides of the above mentioned issue, there are also some other issues with the flat identifier: 1) Burden the control policy configuration. Since the flat identifier has no hierarchy, it's hard to enforce identifier-block based security control policy on firewalls. That's to say, only host granularity access control list is available. 2) Lack of trust and economic model in the id/locator mapping system. Since these flat identifiers are randomly scattered across the namespace and stored at essentially random nodes, the id/locator resolution infrastructure has no "pay-for-your-own" model, unless the id/locator resolution infrastructure is managed by one and only one authority. So I wonder whether the flat identifier is acceptable for the id/locator split architecture. 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
