[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf
> Of Olivier Bonaventure
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 11:17 AM
> To: Xu Xiaohu
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; 'Routing Research Group'
> Subject: Re: [RRG] Consensus check: mapping granularity
> >>> The identifier to locator mapping function should support mapping
> > entries
> >>> for both host identifiers and their aggregates.
> >> For scalability reasons, I would propose to define this
> requirement as
> >> follows :
> >> The identifier to locator mapping function MUST support
> mapping entries
> >> for aggregates of identifiers. It MAY also support mapping
> entries for
> >> host identifiers.
i suggest to refine the requirement: one is the nature / structure of
the identifier itself, the other is in terms of scalability
("aggregation" of identifiers), and the last one in terms of ID-to-Loc
> > Hi Tony and Olivier,
> > Does this requirement imply that the identifier must be a
> hierarchical label
> > (not flat label) so as to be aggregatable?
> I don't think that a hierarchy is necessary.
> What is required is a mapping system that deals with blocks
> of identifiers and not with individual identifiers.
agreed. aggregates of identifiers shall be defined though to complete
the initial requirement. what's relationship between block & aggregate
of identifiers ?
> http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium
> to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com 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 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