Eric, (cross-post to lisp dropped)
On 2009-01-16 07:42, Fleischman, Eric wrote: ... > 8) When RLOC-EID is done properly (e.g., like HIP where each concept > appears on a different layer of the protocol stack), there is no > liveness problem (nor can there be one). Rather, the "liveness problem" > described in draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is a generic problem > of map-and-encaps systems, not of RLOC-EID. The title and text of > draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is therefore inappropriately > scoped as being caused by RLOC-EID when it is rather a common attribute > of map-and-encaps. Note that LISP is a map-and-encaps system. I've said from day one that LISP's use of the term 'EID' is incorrect, and it should be replaced by something like 'local locator' or 'level 0 locator' or some such. So a more positive spin on your subject line is 'Liveness requirement in multi-locator architectures'. Which is of course something that has been discovered many times and is very widely implemented in robust distributed systems. Another positive spin is 'Mapping requirement in ID/Loc split concept'. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
