> If you have variable length IDs, Just to clarify: I did not mean to suggest variable length ID. Any length means not strictly 64 and determined by the prefix. E.g. if the earth's hierarchy will be based on 32-bits prefix, than by default all IDs will have 92 bits.
--- On Thu, 8/21/08, Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering... > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 12:04 PM > >> Why is this useful for the unnecessary complication > of the > >> flexibility? > > > > For example it allows users flexibility in managing > their IDs; > > decide what to expose externally vs. internally; > create applications > > utilizing the vast pool of permanent unique > identifiers; change > > providers, etc. > > You are going to hear over and over again that users > don't want to > manage anything. > > Regarding unique IDs, they should be able to assume the IDs > are unique > because underlying layers take care of it for them. > > Regarding changing providers, with a decent Loc/ID split > solution, IDs > don't have to change when you change service providers. > > >> I would think that net admins don't want users > to have > >> this flexibility and why would they care? > > > > Need a definition of the user, e.g. a large enterprise > is an end > > user to SP. The enterprise may want the above > flexibility. SP on > > their side would focus on capacity and traffic. > > If you have variable length IDs, then remote sites will > have to > capable of parsing the different lengths. > > I don't think it's a good idea. We have enough fish > to fry and this > flexibility is not really providing any real value. > > Dino > > > > > > > > > --- On Wed, 8/20/08, Dino Farinacci > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> From: Dino Farinacci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering... > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Cc: [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2008, 6:18 PM > >>> ILNP specifically calls for 64-bits ID for a > node. What > >> I was > >>> suggesting is a range that can be any (64, 86, > etc) > >> based on the set > >>> prefix length. > >>> Also end users can put that ID anywhere they > see fit: > >> node, > >>> interface, port, application etc. If necessary > it will > >> be an > >>> architectural decision to recommend where > exactly to > >> put the ID. > >> > >> Why is this useful for the unnecessary > complication of the > >> flexibility? > >> > >> I would think that net admins don't want users > to have > >> this > >> flexibility and why would they care? > >> > >> Dino > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 -- 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
