Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Fri, Jan 16, 2009 08:36:16AM +1300: > 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.
Identifier/locator separation makes the problem possible, and it can make it possible at any point in the network. At any point we can have a separation of - a name the packets are trying to get to - a name for a point in the network via which they can be delivered and the problems are similar in all cases, whether you use "identifier" and "locator" to name the things or not. > Another positive spin is 'Mapping requirement in ID/Loc split > concept'. Mapping is just part of the problem. You can map to all possible paths, but you have to establish a session in the face of all the choices, and track and recover from failures. Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
