> From: Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> I think a lot of my message may have confused you, because I was using the term "name" as a generic term, in the sense of 'something used to name a particular thing', with no particular syntax or properties.
So, 'addressesa', 'locators', 'identifiers' - they are all 'names', in the sense I was using the term 'name'. So perhaps you could re-read my message: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05312.html with that in mind, and perhaps it will make a bit more sense this time... :-) > Here lies the fundamental difference in starting point between LISP and > the mission of this RRG. The RRG's mission is to solve the routing > problem, or more specifically, the inter-domain routing problem. Yes, and as we discussed earlier, everyone seems to agree that 'separation of location and identity' is a _necessary_ part of 'solving the inter-domain routing problem' (whatever that is :-). > one approach seemingly getting wider support is to take separation of > ID(host) and Locator(for routing) as the basis. > ... > In the endeavor, this RRG might possibly come up with a again different > picture than what HIT and LISP drew. Except that LISP is an attempt to 'do' that part of the problem, in a way that is practical, realistic, and feasible - i.e. actually likely to be deployed and used in a widespread way. As we have discovered over the last couple of decades, it's easy to dream up a new design - what's hard is to come up with a design that the world actually takes up and uses. I happen to think that the path of which LISP is a first step is the best path, but because it does separate location and identity is only a part of the reason I like it. To me, there are other, more important reasons I like this path - the layer of xTRs which will hopefully grow up gives us a nice boundary inside of which we can make changes which are not necessarily visible to legacy hosts and site routers (e.g. deploy a new locator namespace, deploy a new routing architecture, etc). But I think it's a bit premature to try and design all that new stuff - and in any case, there's no manpower for it. What I am trying to do with LISP is make sure that it has useful 'hooks' in it to make deployment of future pieces easier (e.g. the RLOC resolution protool can produce answers which are in a format other than 'IPv4' or 'IPv6'). Like I said, the chief difficulty with any new architecture we come up with is not designing the architecture - any competent architect can do that. Coming up with a way to deploy it is the real challenge. Noel _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
