On 2009-03-31 05:59, Scott Brim wrote:
> Excerpts from Dino Farinacci on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 09:31:25AM -0700:
>> I think we need to keep all this terminology stuff simple. And not
>> have too many terms. What comes out of this group will pro-market or
>> negative-market locator/ID separation. And you don't want people to
>> react "this locator/ID separation stuff is more trouble then it is
>> worth".
>
> For me it's about the meaning of 'locator/identifier separation', and
> mainly in endpoints. The essential point is to get identification
> functions to stop using data that might have to change when topology
> changes.
Thankyou! This is a great insight. I think we're seeing that all
these addressy-locatory-identifiery labels are a bit slippery and
can change their nature according to context and usage. But the function
that's using them needs to use the most stable label that has the correct
semantics for the specific use. And if it fails, it's always necessary to
go up a level and try again.
In primitive terms, in today's world:
if a MAC address fails, ARP again
if an IP address fails, DNS again
if an FQDN fails, Google again ;-)
In an ID/LOC split world:
if a MAC address fails, ARP again
if an IP-locator fails, map again
if an IP-identifier fails, DNS again
if an FQDN fails, Google again ;-)
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
