Excerpts from Noel Chiappa on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 01:30:31PM -0400: > > From: Scott Brim <[email protected]> > > > But where's the difference? ... The more structure there is in the > > name, the less work routing has to do. On one end of the spectrum you > > have a strict source route (or a circuit or a PIP "address"). > > Go back to Saltzer - or to Shoch, for that matter. There's a _fundamental_ > difference between the place you're trying to end up at, and the _path_ you > use to get there.
I need you to explain your use of words (as opposed to what Saltzer might have meant)? Is "the place you're trying to end up at" a point in the topology where something is attached, or is it the something itself? If it's the first then you might call the name of that thing a locator. If it's the second, you might call the name of it an identifier. What I said, echoing Dow, was that a name used as a locator can have any amount of structure in it, more or less, and that doesn't change whether it's a locator or not. I don't see your point -- which things are you trying to say are qualitatively different? And both are separate from "the _path_ you use". Even in a structured name, the path is not necessarily implied. Except in the strictest cases, the forwarder itself has to make a decision on what path to take, even with a lot of hints in the name. > > On the other end you have MACs. It's all routing, it's all > > forwarding, ... but there is a continuum of how much structure > > there is and how much work you have to do. > > Look, step back far enough and _all_ this stuff is just 'stuff used > to move bits around'. [Sarcasm=on] So why don't we throw away _all_ > the terminology, and just call them all 'sumbas'? (Including TCP and > HTTP, they have the same high-level point - if your viewpoint is > high-level enough.) [Sarcasm=off] I didn't go anywhere near that far so please justify your exaggeration? I'm saying that the degree of structure in the name does not decide whether it can be called a locator or not. > > it's all "locators" (meaning things used by forwarding) > > To most of us, "locator" means 'a _structured_ name for a place in the > topology'. Does it matter to you how much structure is in the name? > And, in a very fine irony indeed, we've circled around back to > August 1993, because the _original_ definition of "locator" did > _not_ include use "by [the] forwarding": the term 'locator' was > defined _precisely_ to have a term that meant 'structured name for a > place in the topology that is _not_ used by the forwarding'. How was it used then? What did forwarding use? It's not 1993 anymore. If you have useful insights to bring forward please do, but whether something was used by our ancestors or not doesn't say a lot about whether it's useful here and now. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
