On 23 Apr 2010, at 09:31 , Robin Whittle wrote: > How would ILNP work with the 32 bits of IPv4 address split between > Locator and Identifier? As far as I know, this is not documented > anywhere.
See draft-rja-ilnp-dns, which makes clear that the 32-bits is the Locator value (L32). As we've discussed on this list (both historically and recently) there are a variety of ways that one can engineer the transport of an Identifier (and a Nonce for that matter). A more detailed explanation of ILNPv4 is in the peer-reviewed paper published in Telcommunications Systems. This is an IRTF Research Group. Unlike the IETF, the IRTF expects that participants already know the RG topic very well, and that participants WILL take the time to read the relevant research literature. ILNP is VERY well documented in the peer-reviewed research literature. Most of those papers are available online in PDF at well-known URLs. When time permits, I intend another pass at updating the various draft-rja-ilnp-* I-Ds. (NB: Time I spend on this list is time not available to do such updates, and my paid job does not include any of this.) > This is not a society, but if you want your ideas to be properly > understood and respected - and if you want to find out any > shortcomings they may have - then you will debate them patiently and > in detail with people who provide critiques. Wrong. This is NOT a debating society. It certainly is NOT incumbent upon anyone to debate anything with anyone. RGs are not setup as debating forums. The way that one gets ideas properly reviewed, understood, and respected in the research world (and an IRTF RG by definition IS in the research world) is to publish papers in the peer-reviewed research literature. We've done that with ILNP, and we have been doing that with ILNP since LONG before this RG was re-focused onto this topic. Yours, Ran _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
