> >without a mechanism to map the endpoint
> >identifier to an IP address, such identifiers are useless in
> >referrals between application components.
> >
> Not completely useless; they would prevent the problem of reaching the
> *wrong* endpoint. This isn't much help if you have only one address
> > > A system doesn't have to provide mechanisms to look up mappings
> > > from to to be useful;
> >
> > agreed. but it does need to provide such mechanisms in order to
> > provide useful endpoint identifiers. without a mechanism to map the
> > endpoint identifier to an IP address, such ident
Keith Moore wrote:
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any
> way of mapping between that identity and an address where you
> can reach the host.
without a mechanism to map the endpoint
identifier to an IP address, such i
At Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:58:33 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:26:47 -0500
> "J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any
> > > way of mapping betwe
> > without a mechanism to map the endpoint identifier to an IP address,
> > such identifiers are useless in referrals between application
> > components.
>
> This is not so. Read again what I said before:
>
> If you construct the protocol interactions such that you don't *need* to
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> it does need to provide such mechanisms in order to provide useful
> endpoint identifiers.
I don't think you can make such a blanket statement without some more
analysis. For example:
> without a mechanism to map the endpoint identifier t
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:08:26 -0800
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > HIP only solves part of the problem. It lets you use something
> > besides an address as a host identity, but it doesn't provide any
> > way of mapping between that identity and an address where you
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:26:47 -0500
"J. Noel Chiappa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any
> > way of mapping between that identity and an address where you
> > can reach the host.
>
> From: Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> HIP only solves part of the problem ... it doesn't provide any way of
> mapping between that identity and an address where you can reach the
> host.
A system doesn't have to provide mechanisms to look up mappings from
to to be useful; ju
Keith Moore wrote:
HIP only solves part of the problem. It lets you use something besides
an address as a host identity, but it doesn't provide any way of mapping
between that identity and an address where you can reach the host.
That's not entirely true. It doesn't give you a very scalable way t
> Egads. This list is still talking about the Identity Problem (i.e.,
> that IP addresses are semantically overloaded in that they
> simultaneously indicate (network interface) routing topology and
> (node) identity). I just can't believe how we can continually talk
> about this problem and then no
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Thinking differently about names and addresses
> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> your general perspective highlights the problem at hand. .
> From: "Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> your general perspective highlights the problem at hand. ..
> the routing community believes the address is the topology locator,
> while your & Dave's comments show the app community believes it is an
> identifier.
To paraphrase Clint
> And my point is that when you take that uninterpreted label out of its
> context of uniqueness, it can't be used as a meaningful name.
which is why addresses need to be unique.
> The real problem that the app community has with 1918 & SL is that
> they validly want a single namespace, but they
Dave Crocker wrote:
> TH> The discussions on the multi6 mail list
> TH> have basically been about how the routing community believes the
> TH> address is the topology locator, while your & Dave's
> comments show
> TH> the app community believes it is an identifier.
>
> By definition, an addres
Tony,
TH> The discussions on the multi6 mail list
TH> have basically been about how the routing community believes the address
TH> is the topology locator, while your & Dave's comments show the app
TH> community believes it is an identifier.
By definition, an address is a topology indicator. Al
Harald,
>> In any event, please note that the suggestion that applications are
>> required to use names, rather than IP addresses, is new.
...
>> As in, it has not been part of the Internet architecture for the past 25
>> years.
HTA> RFC 1958, June 1996:
HTA> 4. Name and address issues
HTA> yes
> I am not going to comment on each point, but your general perspective
> highlights the problem at hand. The discussions on the multi6 mail
> list have basically been about how the routing community believes the
> address is the topology locator, while your & Dave's comments show the
> app communi
-Original Message-
> From: John C Klensin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:13 PM
> To: Dave Crocker; Tony Hain
> Cc: 'Margaret Wasserman'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Thinking differently about names and addresses
>
>
> --On Mon
--On mandag, mars 31, 2003 16:44:35 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In any event, please note that the suggestion that applications are
required to use names, rather than IP addresses, is new.
Completely new.
As in, it has not been part of the Internet architecture for the past 2
--On Monday, 31 March, 2003 16:44 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tony,
Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If
another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a
multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and
wants to refer NodeB to the FooBar server i
Tony,
I am going to wait on replying to the "debate" aspect of this exchange, to
see if others have comments. I am posting now only to offer a
clarification:
>> TH> Either the addresses are ambiguous to the routing protocol, or it
>> TH> can deal with them. If they are ambiguous, there is no
>
Dave Crocker wrote:
> TH> Send a name.
>
> Some sort of identifier, perhaps. The details are something
> we all need to discuss (and define) separately, quietly, and
> carefully.
Any other identifier will need to have all the properties of the FQDN,
as well as have a secure mechanism for the ow
Tony,
>> Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If
>> another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a
>> multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants
>> to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do?
TH> Send a name.
Some sort of identifier,
24 matches
Mail list logo
