More catch up... Brian wrote: |I fully agree, and what I'm suggesting is that the (sad) history of |the initial success of CIDR followed by the recent backsliding which |I call "the PI heresy" shows us that economics will always |tend to create |a swamp, so we'd better engineer the system for a swamp. And |in a swamp, |any benefit from aggregation is both limited and unpredictable. (Would |anybody like to predict the effect of the collapse of the US financial |system on BGP4 aggregation two years from now?)
Do you really mean that? Are you really suggesting that we engineer routing for 2^48 prefixes? |True. But that is, to use the technical term, a crap-shoot, just as |BGP aggregation of adjoining PI prefixes is a crap-shoot. It will |be the exception rather than the rule; that's the nature of a swamp. |There are no natural economic forces that provide incentives for |aggregation. True. The alternative is for us to remove the incentives to deaggregate (as best we can) and then to restrict things so that people can't hurt the system. |So I stick to my guns: we need to map the edge-swamp into a |significantly |smaller core-swamp, or nothing will change. Relying on aggregation at |the edge hasn't worked for BGP, so why should it work for any form |of EID/RLOC mapping (regardless of terminology)? I'd argue that if there's a core swamp, you've already failed to scale. Tony -- 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
