Hi Bill,
Like a frame relay DLCI. Got it now.
Exactly.
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.
I agree that translation is not that big a deal as long as it isn't happening due to a namespace boundary or scope boundary (e.g., NAT).
However, I'm still not ready to roll labels, VCI, DLCI, and X.25 paths (and for that matter, the Atomic link layer path) into our definition of 'locator'. I'd much prefer to take the opportunity to distinguish those and use something like 'path' to describe those.
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.
Ok, enlightenment is most welcome. ;-) Must be accompanied by alternate text tho.
Cheers, Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
