> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(_at_)wasabisystems(_dot_)com>
>> ??? I said nothing about Mobile IPv6 being a solution to the routing
>> problem.
> We were talking about the routing problem. If you just brought it up to
> be clever (which I assume you did), you didn't further the discussion.
I was merely responding to your (incorrect) initial assertion that:
People frequently propose "endpoint identifiers" and "routing identifiers"
be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked proposal that was
less flawed than the current mechanism.
I have no interest in discussing the "routing problem". Been there, done that.
(Also, the business of separating identity in location is really not related
to routing. It happens to be a good thing to do on basic grounds, but it does
also make some routing-related things easier. E.g. it can help with
renumbering and dynamic multi-homing; in certain transition schemes for
deployment of new routing architectures it makes the deployment of new
namespaces for location easier; etc, etc.)
> My own feeling is that we're just going to have to accept the notion of
> our routers having millions of routes in them and go for algorithms
> that scale better than distance vector or path vector
There are no such algorithms, and it's highly unlikely there will ever be a
routing algorithm for flat addresses that scales as O(logN), or anything like
that. The only solution to scaling routing overhead is to use
abstraction/aggregation.
Noel