Subject: Re: [RAM] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 18:20:40 EDT

A truly remarkable draft and yet:
3. asks: Is a Split the solution ? while 5.Conclusion requests to  decide 
between Completely versus Partially disjoint namespaces only. I conclude:  Split 
is the only possible solution.
 
But for what? Scalability Problem ? Multihoming? User roaming?
IMHO, for eliminating the scalability problem at most two additional bytes  
are needed; not 4; not 16.
 
And I am sure, solutions for multihoming and user roaming will be  completely 
different, given that there is no scalability problem any more.
 
Heiner

In einer eMail vom 05.06.2007 09:28:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

--------  Original Message --------
Subject: I-D  ACTION:draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007  15:50:02 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To:  [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New  Internet-Draft is available from the on-line  Internet-Drafts
directories.

Title     : General Identifier-Locator Mapping Considerations
Author(s)    : B. Carpenter
Filename   : draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt
Pages   : 22
Date        :  2007-6-4

This document presents various general  considerations about the
mapping between identifiers and  locators at the network and routing
level in the  Internet.

A URL for this Internet-Draft  is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-idloc-map-cons-01.txt

_______________________________________________
RAM  mailing  list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 08:54:26 +0200

On 2007-06-06 00:20, [email-masked] wrote:
> between Completely versus Partially disjoint namespaces only. 

Yes, there is a slight structural error in the logic of the draft
there. Thanks.

> I conclude:  Split 

In a sense that is not the purpose of this draft - I should clarify
that the draft assumes the answer is yes.
> are needed; not 4; not 16.

That doesn't matter as far as the architectural choices go, I think.

> different, given that there is no scalability problem any more.

That isn't sure. Once you have a loc-id split, both mh and roaming
involve manipulating the locator for a constant id.

     Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:26:31 -0400

Hi Brian.  I don't understand some of your reasoning ...

- "Within its site, A must have an Identifier and Locator that match
  1:1 for the convenience of operational staff"

  Do you really mean 1:1?  There needs to be at least one Identifier
  known to operations staff which maps to a particular locator, but
  there can be more.

  Even if a 1:1 mapping were required, I wouldn't understand how you
  get from "1:1 match" to the conclusion below: "on-site, Identifiers
  and Locators should not be split".  Does "1:1 match" equal "not
  split" to you?

  and then in your response to Heinrich Hummel:

  >> I conclude:  Split is the only possible solution.
  >
  > In a sense that is not the purpose of this draft - I should
  > clarify that the draft assumes the answer is yes.

... but above you said "should not be split" ... ?

swb

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:17:25 +0200

Scott,

>   1:1 for the convenience of operational staff"

I don't think you'll find that text in the current version. It's
in the part that I most seriously reworked. Please forget the -00 version.

    Brian