On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Hierarchical or flat uniqueness system?
If you pick global for #2 then the raging success of the DNS at extraordinarily large scales makes the answer obvious. If you pick local then the extra management overhead of a hierarchical system makes the answer equally obvious. There's a -reason- enterprise users often work with bare IP addresses instead of DNS names inside their local systems and it's not because they're dumb or lazy. > 2. Global/universal or just local uniqueness? For which component of the system? Either answer is obviously correct depending on which component you're talking about. For the communication's initiator finding the acceptor? How would we structure a non-global uniqueness system? For associating packets with ongoing traffic between a particular pair of hosts where one of them is an anonymous client? Most global systems you could construct suffer byte overhead, management overhead, a loss of desirable anonymity for the initiator, or all three. > 3. Shall we make identity/location split? Do you accept that overloading network topology, packet association and finding the remote service all onto the same data element in the packet is the root cause of our routing problem? If so then "don't do that" would seem to be an obvious part of the solution. Then again, that's also the punchline to, "Doctor, my arm hurts when I move it this way." We should understand and perhaps even enumerate what value lies in overloading before deciding to do away with it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
