Well spoken, Scott. At least, they (the identifiers) don't have to be evaluated while forwarding towards the egress DFZ router. Heiner
-------- Kabel E-Mail Reply --------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : [EMAIL PROTECTED];[EMAIL PROTECTED];[email protected] Date: 20.08.2008 19:00:00 Excerpts from Peter Sherbin at 08:49:41 -0700 on Wed 20 Aug 2008: > > translation solution. If we go down the map-n-encap path, it > > implies that we need a mapping solution that does not require > > aggregation of the identifier space. So far, there aren't a lot > > of those on the table... I missed this the first time around. Tony, first you seem to be assuming that identifiers will be in network layer packet headers and that packets will be delivered using them (otherwise there would be no question of needing to aggregate "identifiers" in network layer routing). Neither of these assumptions is required. Identifiers are primarily useful for multipath management and session continuity. Identifiers may be in the network layer, and carried in network layer packet headers, for convenience of the endpoints, but that doesn't mean they should be included in routing information. -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
