On 03/21/2013 05:14 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > Chris, >> ... >> >> TODAY it reduces the number, yes. 100% agree. >> TOMORROW the number of repositories, even those which are 'hosted' will >> be split up by name and/or ip-address... > > I think the operative term is "might" vs. "will."
sure, I'm just looking at what's happened in other things that look like this. I could be wrong. > >> I have a feeling these will be like DNS servers and likely ripe (ha!) >> points for attack by bad folks. So sharing fate for all customers just >> seems like a bad idea. > > A single repository need not translate into a single instance of the files > associated with that repository, right? > it's a single hostname/ip-address-set right? rsync://repository.arin.net/ I think we'll see, for example: rsync://customer1.repository.arin.net/ hostnames are free, ip-addresses (for a registry) are free :) having all your customers down because someone dislikes visa.com (who chose to use the hosted repository model) is ... unsatisfactory (and likely expensive) >>> folks become unhappy with the repository management, but for now I think >>> it is reasonable to assume a much smaller number of repositories, which >>> is what Sriram and I did in our model. >> yup. but having the ability to increase the number of repositories in >> the model means we can say: "today with N repositories and M objects we >> see times of Y. Tomorrow when we have X repositories with Y objects we >> should see times of Z" > > yes, it is reasonable to incorporate knobs into models to allow > folks to explore their favorite scenarios. cool. thanks! _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list sidr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
