On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Scott Brim <[email protected]> wrote: > - Loc/ID separation is not directly routing's problem. The root cause, > and the pivot point for a solution, is identification functions that > use topology-dependent information as input. These functions are > primarily in endpoints but are also in network infrastructure. They > should be fixed, to the extent they reasonably can. Where they can't, > then routing, mobility, etc. must take up the slack. The RRG > recommends to the IETF that it needs to decide where that line is -- > what identification functions will they assume will be fixed and which > not -- so that other Internet technologies, particularly routing, can > have a clearer idea what they have to do.
Hi Scott, As a group we looked for a definition of locator and identifier and got a dozen of mutually incompatible answers. I suggest we avoid that terminology in any recommendation lest it make the recommendation clear as mud. Can your statement be rephrased as something similar to: "layer-4 and higher references to the communicating endpoints are strongly bound to the packet elements used for layer-3 forwarding decisions, such that practically speaking one can not change independent of the other. The pivot point for a solution would be weakening that binding until it's no stronger than the binding to the packet's layer-2 elements." Which is still somewhat opaque because of the circumlocution, but at least it's built on concepts that are precisely understood. > - NAT is now architecture. Concur. Regards, Bill Herrin -- 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
