Understand Mapping
draft-jen-mapping-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Dan Jen , Lixia Zhang | ||
| Last updated | 2009-10-19 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
This draft discusses the different requirements that mapping to support mobility has versus mapping to support routing scalability. In mobility solutions, packets are forwarded to the location where mapping information is stored so that they can be encapsulated to the final destination. In routing scalability solutions, mapping information needs to be available at packet entry points to the network. Attempts to use one mapping system for both purposes can lead to high overhead in either mapping information distribution or otherwise mapping information discovery, as well as stale mapping information being used for data forwarding.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)