Lixia Zhang wrote:
2/ most importantly, I was calling attention to Postel's comments on
slides 7 & 8: these quotes were taken from the meeting minutes then:
- “Transport layer ID is not an issue that we
need be concerned with for now. Once we
decide what to do for IP addresses, then
transport people can easily figure out how
they may use the address.”
Well, what we already know is that we want our routing tokens to be
changeable. We need hierarchy in the address space to provide
scalability. We have seen that we need to form that hierarchy on the
topology, otherwise we have to morph the topology to fit the hierarchy,
and morphing the topology is expensive. So when a host changes its
position in the topology, the routing token needs to change.
Unfortunately, that breaks the transport connection.
We already understand enough about the routing token and the transport
token to understand that we need to fix this overloading.
- “We must avoid circular dependencies;
- “we must define a substrate of the
system that can operate without DNS. ...
- “we must not depend on DNS to
bootstrap the core operation of the
system”
Relevance? I have yet to see one proposal make this mistake.
Note that using the DNS and creating a circular dependency are two
different things. We're already at the point where DNS is a fundamental
requirement for Internet operations. If you cannot resolve
www.google.com, www.yahoo.com and www.cnn.com, then for all practical
purposes, the net is down.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
