On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-12-15 05:20, Tony Li wrote:
Michael Menth wrote:
Hi Lixia,
do mapping systems also belong to the discussed proposals? I assume
they do not although a lot of the complexity taken out of the
routing
is put into them? If I am wrong, I would like to add FIRMS to the
list
of discussed proposals:
http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/Menth09-FIRMS.pdf
Michael,
Mapping systems are obviously a component of a solution but are not
by
themselves a solution. To be considered seriously, they should be
used
in conjunction with some network layer solution.
Hmm. Don't you think that to some extent these should be orthogonal?
again strictly personal opinion: I think the two can be separable
components but one does not exist independently from the other -- in
a rough sense I agree with Tony that mapping alone does not make a
solution proposal.
A mapping mechanism needs to meet the specific requirements of a
network
layer mechanism, but that doesn't require the two to be irrevocably
bound to each other.
I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in
nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier
space
proves to fall short. Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if
we don't need a hierarchy from the start.
Brian
I really hesitate to say that I've been old enough (dont feel that way
anyway:) that I have seen a number of times in the past the attempts
for solutions that would be "very general in nature". Do not recall
any of those succeeded particularly well...
There is some basic difference between things that are minimal in
design (e.g. IP) vs those that are very general in nature.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
