[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] map-and-map (vs map-and-encaps) - further thoughts
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Each EID block gets mapped to a set of RLOC blocks, but each RLOC
block only has one EID block mapped to it.
Doesn't that mean there will be far more RLOC prefixes than EID
It depends on your measure of "far more". :-)
But yes, it will be more.
Notably, the following should all be applicable:
- not every site needs an EID block, only multi-homed sites
- each RLOC block is assigned out of a PA block, and in the DFZ only
should appear as the covering aggregate from the LIR
- the distribution of number-of-homes versus
number-of-sites-with-that-number-of-homes, would likely be highly tilted
towards the values 1, 2 and 3.
- EID blocks *may* number less than non-RLOC PA assignments, depending
on the uptake of multihoming generally.
So, even in the extreme cases of some sites having lots of homes, I
would expect the *average* RLOC:EID ratio is likely to be about 2 and
In short, I don't see it as being a big concern.
The main question will be, what are they typical block sizes for
multihomed sites compared to non-multihomed sites?
That will impact the allocation assumptions being made by LIRs, if it
differs significantly from the general case (non-multihomed).
However, I don't think there is any association between a sites desire
to be multihomed, and the size of prefix it needs. The experience with
PI assignments in IPv4 certainly suggests that small prefix multihomed
is a very popular niche need.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org 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