[151179] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Tue Mar 13 00:35:52 2012
In-Reply-To: <5E848BE7-83D8-4509-9D83-BE3B01E6CA18@apnic.net>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:34:35 -0400
To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> On 13/03/2012, at 8:14 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> On 12 Mar 2012, at 21:15 , William Herrin wrote:
>>> Not at all. You just build a second tier to the routing system.
>>
>> It's so strange how people think a locator/identifier split
>> will solve the scalability problem. We already have two
>> tiers: DNS names and IP addresses. So that didn't solve
>> anything. I don't see any reason a second second tier would.
>
> I think you have encountered an article of faith Iljitsch :-)
>
> =A0 =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirection: =A0Any problem can be so=
lved by adding another layer of indirection.
"But that usually will create another problem."
Then the test must be: does any particular proposed layer of
indirection solve more intractable and more valuable problems than it
creates, enough more valuable to be worth the cost of implementation?
Still, I concede that it would be "better" to more effectively use the
indirection layer we have (DNS) rather than create another. Better,
but not necessarily achievable.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com=A0 bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
