On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:18 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> B) An "Address" is an object that combines aspects of identity > with topological location. IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are > current examples. > > C) A "Locator" is a structured topology-dependent name that > is not used for node identification, and is not a path. > Two related meanings are current, depending on the class > of things being named: > 1) The topology-dependent name of a node's interface. > 2) The topology-dependent name of a single subnetwork > OR topology-dependent name of a group of related > subnetworks that share a single aggregate. An > IP routing prefix is a current example of this last. > > > D) An "Identifier" is a topology-independent name for a logical > node. Depending upon instantiation, a "logical node" might be > a single physical device, a cluster of devices acting as a > single node, or a single virtual partition of a single physical > device. An OSI End System Identifier (ESID) is an example of > an identifier. A Fully-Qualified Domain Name that precisely > names one logical node is another example. (Note well that not > all FQDNs meet this definition.) > I'm OK that the group or the whole IETF go ahead with this use of terminologies allegedly established by 'rough consensus'. But, to me, use of extra terminologies of identifiers and locators are unnecessary. Sorry I have to keep to this view of minority. My reasoning is as follows. I'm confining to a ILNP picture: o An ILNP ID points to a node. I'd simply call it 'node address'. o An ILNP Locator points to a subnet. I'd simply call it 'subnet address'. o The whole site will be aggregated to a shortened Locator before exiting the site. That is, the whole site can be identified by this shortened/aggregated Locator in the global network. I'd call this 'shortened' Locator 'site address'. So, basically, I wouldn't need any terminology than 'address' which has been out there and used without problem(?) for forty years or more. The three addresses, node-addr, subnet-addr, and site-addr, are numbers with essentially the same quality, the only difference being the granularity of the object each address is identifying, and that in a step-wise widening systematic way. What ILNP basically proposes, whether or not originally intended, is use of hierarchical addresses to split the whole problem into manageable pieces. One aspect I'd personally go further to assert is that there's no compelling reason why the subnet-addr has to be global to enable the whole operation. It can be as local as node-addr. In contrast, the site-addr might be global since all other parties (sites) should be able to identify/locate each other sites. And as far as node-addr and subnet-addr are local, they don't have to be exposed outside of a given site, or more equivalently said, they might be visible globally but shall not be used in inter-domain routing. In summary, ILNP view My view My scope identifier node addr local locator subnet addr local site locator site addr global The poll is something like 'here's the menu, take it or not'. That's perfectly OK if this shop is only for ILNP. But what if there're some naive people who'd assume that this shop is still a generic public one and would think the categories/names in the menu are unnecessarily biased. So, I'd be OK if the poll is to make way clear to get ILNP rolling, but not OK if this is going to be used as any 'authentic' weapon to impose new definitions in the networking research in general. Thanks. -- DY
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
