On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: >> In that use case, tag 555 is most certainly a locator within the scope >> of the MPLS system. > > Even in the simplest cases, the label value is almost always allocated on a > hop-by-hop basis. Thus, 555 is only valid for a single hop and the router > that receives this will SWAP it for another value.
Hi Tony, Like a frame relay DLCI. Got it now. I still argue that it's a locator under the locator definition I used. Remember, I didn't define "locator" as point of attachment here. I defined it as a type of address not used to construct an identifier while I defined an address as an element used to determine the packet's next hop. Nothing in my definition of address or locator precludes translation, even on a hop by hop basis. Translation is only obstructed in the identifier where it might interfere with the persistence requirement. > Note that this is somewhat different > than how we think of a locator, as normally we consider a locator to be an > absolute name of a location, not the relative path to a location. Yeah, I get that. I'm suggesting that how we've been thinking about locators and identifiers is not quite right. The error was revealed by our attempt here to give them more precise definitions. They're eluding our attempts at rigor. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
