Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote, On 12/11/08 3:50 PM: > On 2008-12-12 04:52, Scott Brim wrote: >> RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote: >>> So I think it is important to have very crisp definitions all around >>> (forwarding vs bridging; identity vs location, et cetera) So I try >>> to be consistent and precise with my use of terms. However, other >>> folks' mileage differs on some/all of these issues, as is true with >>> many other issues discussed in the Routing RG. I think we'd all be >>> better off with some agreed upon crisp definitions for various terms, >>> but past attempts to do that in this RG have not succeeded. >> Just to follow up on this part ... >> >> What you need crisp definitions for is how things are used, in protocols >> acting on packets. Therefore you could ask >> >> "Is this field in the packet an identifier or is it a locator" >> >> but you've seen how get into discussion of whether something can be a >> locator here but not there, and so on. It's more useful to ask >> >> "Is this field in the packet used for identification? Is it used by >> forwarding?" >> >> You could answer "yes" and "yes" or "not in this scope". > > Bingo! Whether a particular binary string has value as a locator > or not depends entirely on the scope in which it's examined. > If the flat lookup table in a bridge or switch decides which > outbound interface to use on the basis of a MAC address, then it's > being used as a locator at that particular point, even though it > may have been used as an identifier during the ARP or ND process. > > Brian
"being used as" ... that's what I was trying to say when I said the important thing was the function using it. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
