In einer eMail vom 15.12.2009 16:00:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
> From: [email protected] > I have tried - in vain - to convince people that a routable namespace a > la Manhattan, New York is better than using a non-routable namespace > where you depend on mapping. Perhaps they have not been receptive because they would like _some_ names that _stay the same when they move to a different location_. Noel Something for sure has to stay the same when you move to a different location; which is the current IPv4, IPv6, plain HIT (even without IPv6 ?!! ), or FQDN (? if this is what Christian Vogt pursues?). Of course they should stay. Hereby local significance for the IPv4-address would be sufficient (the possibility of ambiguity is a) minor, and b) could be resolved by respective standardized procedures). I have always been talking in favor of an ADDITIONAL namespace. LISP is also introducing -POTENTIALLY- an additional namespace, which however is not routable (only mappable). Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
