Re: [Int-area] Continuing the addressing discussion: what is an address anyway?

["Bless, Roland (TM)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jens,

I'm not sure about your requirements. I think that identifiers for AAA
can be unique and static on their "layer" and do not need to coincide
with network addresses. So if you just want to be sure that you are
talking to the right node, some UUID or public key hash should be fine
for AAA purposes.

However, if you actually want to get to a particular NodeID, no matter
where this node is currently attached to in the underlying network, then
the solution is probably related to the network layer and routing:
you need either need ID-based routing or some ID/Locator split solution
like ILNP or LISP etc. It is also a question of how "self-contained" the
solution should be: on the one hand, one can use overlay solutions for
NodeID to Locator resolution and then use the usual underlay(s) to get
to the locators. On the other hand, every overlay adds complexity,
overhead and is a potential source for inconsistencies.
So if your problem is to get control over a particular drone with a
certain NodeID, ID-based addressing is probably quite beneficial.

Regards,
  Roland

On 07.03.22 at 10:12 Jens Finkhaeuser wrote:
> I'm new on the list - I'll just jump in, I suppose. I'm working on a couple of R&D projects on drone communications, where most participants tend to invent a different wheel from people here. Part of my being here is trying to bridge that gap a bit.
> 
> I largely like the RFC 6115 definition, as it is also compatible with the URI/URL definitions more people might be used to. That should help with adoption.
> 
> I've been reading up on LISP-MN and/or LISP+ALT (that's on a different list, I know), and am currently unsure that these proposals fully meet the needs of drones. I'll have to understand the proposals better.
> 
> The addressing related point here is IMHO the RFC 6115 definition for identifiers may be more suitable for drone uses than the LISP-MN proposal treats EIDs: drones must carry static identifiers for authentication of control handover, while the EID assignment in the proposal reads to me as slightly more dynamic (though not as dynamic as RLOC assignment).
> 
> Hope that helps,
> Jens
> 
> ------- Original Message -------
> 
> On Friday, March 4th, 2022 at 20:57, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Toerless,
>>
> 
>> I believe the closest we ever got to agreed definitions was in the
>>
> 
>> IRTF RFC 6115:
>>
> 
>> 6. 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 the latter.
>>
> 
>> 7. 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 (FQDN) that precisely
>>
> 
>> names one logical node is another example. (Note well that not
>>
> 
>> all FQDNs meet this definition.)
>>
> 
>> Regards
>>
> 
>> Brian
>>
> 
>> On 05-Mar-22 00:39, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>>
> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 09:28:23AM -0800, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>>>
> 
>>>>> of its address structure helps the underlay to locate the entity (xTR) that the
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> address is assigned to (xTR). So the name 'locator' is 'just' a good
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> name for what LISP calls/uses the address for, not for how the under
>>>>>
> 
>>>>> itself would maybe call the address or use the address for.
>>>>
> 
>>>> Well the locator you put in an outer header destination address is called/used/assign to whatever the rules of the underlay are. If the underlay is ethernet, then its a 6-byte address where the high-order 3 bytes is an organizational ID, just to cite an example.
>>>
> 
>>> Indeed.
>>>
> 
>>> I have not seen an answer to the question i posed earlier in the thread:
>>>
> 
>>> whether and if so what general (not technology specific) definition of locator
>>>
> 
>>> and identifier the IETF may have. But i have seen a lot of confusion about
>>>
> 
>>> it and people shying away from using these terms.
>>>
> 
>>> If (as i think) we do not have a commonly applicable definition of locator/identifier
>>>
> 
>>> (beyond its use in indivdual technologies like LISP), then i think this is because
>>>
> 
>>> folks who tried to apply these terms (incorrectly) may have failed to
>>>
> 
>>> see the difference between what an address is and what someone (like an
>>>
> 
>>> application) calls it (/uses it for). In that respect the reference to
>>>
> 
>>> the White Knight in IEN19 is very helpful to remember.
>>>
> 
>>> Cheers
>>>
> 
>>> Toerless
>>>
> 
>>>> Dino
>