On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> > From: Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> >> > Locator was meant to an address that IP would use in routing as it >> uses >> > IPv4 or IPv6 as routing locator. >> >> Some people think that internetwork 'location names' should name just the >> physical network, and that the interface 'address' is a separate name; the >> reason they give is that they are conceptually separate concepts, and the >> names that result are from separate namespaces. (I must confess I don't >> really understand this view, so I can't explain it perfectly - perhaps >> someone else can?) >> >> I view things somewhat differently, and in a way that's similar to the one >> you give above. To me, what is important about a namespace is i) what is >> being named, and ii) what the characteristics of the name are; which to me >> need to be driven by what the main use/uses of the name will be. >> >> For i), I would like to be able to name interfaces - because it is to an >> interface that the system of routers needs to deliver a packet. However, >> that >> covers a large variety of names (e.g. a globally unique ID could name >> intefaces), > > Not everything has to be named. For the interface, all we need is an
noel can explain a bunch more of this, but.. I think 'name' in his context isnt 'mail.lcs.mit.edu' but rather: "192.168.2.2" in today's parlance, in tomorrows LOC/ID separated world though it's possible that it's something entirely different a local IDENTIFIER, with perhaps a LOCATOR concatenated. Representing that thing isn't clearly defined (that I've seen) so: "name" works... for now. -chris _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
