Hi, DY, good to see you writing here. Location/ID separation is the subject of another thread I have started. We need a separate discussion on each of these topics in order to get down to the essence of the respective question.
2010.10.13 ср 18:55:05 Dae Young KIM: > Hi, Toni, > > Although I'm not supporting the 'pure'(?) Loc/ID separation (LIS) having a > separate ID and one or more Locators for a node, your arguments defending to > have a 'overloaded' ID to refer to the node itself rather than the interface > are well put, I'd think. Thank you for this appreciation. I wondered whether I had written understandable English after Robin's remarks. > One confusion we still have is that different people mean different things > by LIS. And classifying proposals of different technical flavor all as CEE > is also sometimes confusing. I'm afraid we're not done clear cut with > terminologies yet. We can invent new terminlologies, if the current ones do not fit. > Details of technical operation is more relevant than 'mal-defined' > terminologies, I'd think. Absolutely. > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Toni Stoev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2010.9.30 четв 17:58:43 Robin Whittle: > > > Hi Toni, > > > you asked another question: > > > > do you consent that nodes (instead of interfaces) have to be > > > > referenced with locators(addresses)/identifiers? > > > > > > I do not support the change you are suggesting, which I understand > > > involves changing the Internet protocols to coerce all nodes to > > > communicate only in terms of themselves, irrespective of what > > > interfaces they are using. > > > > The change is relevant to the general communication between nodes where > > packet relaying occurs. > > The distinction of nodes' interfaces is only adequate in physical > > communication between neighbors. > > > > > One reason is that a node might not want incoming traffic to arrive on > > > all its interfaces. Another is that it might not want to send traffic > > > on all its interfaces. > > > > Should the node bother its overseas correspondents with that? Sending them > > packets with interface reply-to addresses. > > For traffic arriving on particular interfaces nodes shall make arrangements > > with their linked gateways. For sending, each node's decision is its own > > business. > > > > > Some interfaces may be slow, expensive or unreliable - or the node may > > > want to avoid using them so they are ready to accept some other stream > > > of packets. > > > > So if you are a node, make the choice for yourself. Don't make remote (more > > than a hop away) nodes take the burden of your inner considerations. > > > > > Some interfaces might, for policy reasons, be unsuitable for > > > particular types of communication. Some interfaces might use networks > > > with too high a latency, or too high a packet loss, or too small an MTU. > > > > These are node's own regulations, so nodes shall apply them with internal > > means. > > > > > So, to make your idea workable, I think a given physical computer > > > would need to generate multiple Identities, with each such Identity > > > assigned a set of its Interfaces suitable for particular kinds of > > > communication. > > > > No. Particularization of those kinds of communication is the computer's own > > affair. So the computer shall take care of identification of the various > > kinds of communication internally. > > > > > This can already be done by any application which is suitably written, > > > as I just described. > > > > This is a hand-over of the responsibility for communication policy to a > > certain other layer. > > OK, to easily jump among "layers" we just need Role-Based Architecture, > > where each function is performed by a relevant actor - application, protocol > > heap, driver. http://isi.edu/newarch/DOCUMENTS/hotrba.paper.pdf > > And still the identification of a node's points of attachment to links is > > its own matter, and we don't need it in the inter-node path selection > > system. > > > > When a node communicates to its neighbor it just needs the data sent to and > > received by the neighbor. If the node minds the links to its neighbor, it > > shall take care fore that itself; it may arrange special link usage with the > > neighbor. > > When a node communicates to a distant node (more than a hop away) it still > > just needs the data sent to and received by the distant node. The sending > > node generally doesn't need to mind the links of the corresponding node; > > it's the business of the correspondent and its neighboring gateways. > > So, the address/locator a node needs to put in a packet to another node > > just has to be of that entire node. > > _______________________________________________ > > rrg mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
