> From: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]>
> From a network perspective, if a switching node makes a forwarding
> decision based on an [field] in a packet header, then that [field] is a
> locator.
Dino, I hear what you're saying: I have made a very similar point before,
but.... I called those fields 'forwarding tags'. (Not that I have any
particular deep attachment to that particular name, I'd be happy with pretty
much any term.)
The reason I picked a new term there was simple: I think we need terms for
_both_ of these concepts (what others call 'locators', and 'forwarding
tags'), and overloading both meanings onto one term is just confusing.
Like I said earlier, it's true that one can use a MAC address, or any similar
unique identifier, for flat routing. (In which case it's what Tony defined as
an 'identifier', for the interface - i.e. just a name which denotes one
particular instance of a set of objects.)
However, for _non-flat_ routing, one needs a set of names with more
_structure_ in them, and it's names of that type (ones with built-in structure
which is related to the _location_ of the thing they are naming), which most
people mean when they say 'locator'.
And clearly, one can't use the same term for both of these (quite different)
concepts, without great confusion...
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
