Re: Send-n, rat holes and real issues

Edward Lewis wrote:

> DNS scales larger than BGP in the sense that the data held by DNS does
> not travel like the data held by BGP.  Let's say you have 10,000,000
> phone numbers with number portability.

But we're not talking about routing, we're talking about prefixes.

> I think the point Otmar is making is that when you look at a IPv4
> address, the first N bits determine where all the 32-N bit addresses
> are.  I.e., a 10.10.10/24 route (if none are more specific) will be the
> path for all 256 numbers in 10.10.10.0-255.  But for +1-571-555, not all
> 10,000 below what will be routed the same way.

Exactly, the problem is very similar, you can list the average case,
Brian's 99% and then the 1% exception you simply fill in the records as
needed.

> The obsevation of Otmar that I think is great is that telephone numbers,
> when backed by number portability, are no longer network addresses but
> are network names.  Yet, an IP address is just an address, not a name. 
> A lookup service (like DNS) or a directory/database deals with names
> better than addresses, a routing service deals with addresses better
> than names.

Number portability has *NOTHING* to do with prefix lengths. unless the
owner suddenly decides to increase the number space.

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIcrZGEpWoZMmo/c8RAmAiAKCWvjWG7DNx6amTw+GzA7LalPw6cwCgpKng
vZlT2lNZ2CtHT2SNSjjJsi0=
=CQC9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----