Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Fri, Apr 03, 2009 02:57:24PM +1300: > 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
All true. And if I need to give you a referral, I might include the chain of fallbacks I would take if the "primary" name I give you doesn't work. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
