Sean, I agree with you. I was trying to make it simple.
Brian
Sean Doran wrote:
>
> Brian Carpenter writes to Anthony Atkielski:
>
> | > The telephone company figured out how to avoid problems decades ago. Why
> | > the computer industry has to rediscover things the hard way mystifies me.
> |
> | The telephone company has milliseconds to seconds to resolve an address
> | into a route. The Internet has microseconds to nanoseconds to do so.
>
> You are missing the difference between "what" and "where".
>
> The telephone company takes milliseconds to translate the equivalent
> of 6.6.9.9.9.6.6.8.6.4.e164.net into the equivalent of 192.36.143.3.
>
> That is, the phone number is merely an identity name, which is converted
> into a location name by a database lookup.
>
> The principal difference between hop-by-hop packet-based networks and
> circuit-based networks is that in the former the location name does
> not require negotiations among the intermediate systems, or between
> the first-hop IS and the originating end system. There is a simple
> assumption that each hop will be able to make a reasonable forwarding
> decision on any location address, even if the location address is
> "unexpected". In circuit-based networks, this is not generally the case.
>
> The means and costs of translating a "what" address into a "where"
> address are often strikingly similar in both circuit-based and
> hop-by-hop packet-based networks.
>
> Sean.
