In einer eMail vom 14.11.2008 04:59:05 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What I understand is that en EID could be considered as a "name" under the book's nomenclature (a terrible format for a name, but you can always translate it to something you like) and a RLOC is an "address". Yes. You are 100 % right. IMO, a lot of trouble is due to mixed up terminology. EID is clearly endpoint identifier. RLOC (this is so far only my opinion) ought to identify LOCATION. You call it "address" i.e. with quotes meaning real address. Indeed IPv4 addresses (as well as IPv6 addresses) are values of the EID. On a postal letter we would write name + address of the receiver. On an email letter I would prefer to write EID:= IPv4-addr or IPv6-addr or host name or.. and RLOC:= geolocation-id > In fact, the ugliness of "NAT" is directly > related to how, uh, "unfortunate" the underlying architecture really > is. I would rather say " how terrible wrong" the underlying archtecture really is". An archtecture which tries to update the entire internet whenever some user moves to another place would be impossible for a postal service and it is not any better just because the internet runs with electronic speed. The wasted time for producing and dealing with the update churn could be used for much much better things. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
