Re: [nbs] New draft related to name-based sockets

Javier Ubillos <> Thu, 09 December 2010 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB63428C0F0 for <>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 04:11:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.357, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZqJMLZlJ3B8u for <>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 04:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2EF28C0EE for <>; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 04:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04D8140127; Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:13:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Javier Ubillos <>
To: RJ Atkinson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-3riuQ6BlFU7pFt1W63Se"
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:13:19 +0100
Message-ID: <1291896799.3136.11.camel@bit>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3
Subject: Re: [nbs] New draft related to name-based sockets
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Name based sockets discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:11:58 -0000

On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 14:34 -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> Earlier, Pete McCann wrote:
> > Routing on names does require some state to be kept in the 
> > middleboxes if we don't want to put DNS names into every packet.
> That claim is not obviously true, at least with respect 
> to the NBS concepts and scope that were presented at IETF 
> in Beijing last month.  (I wasn't present in Beijing, 
> but I have scanned the presentation slides and meeting minutes 
> online.)  If one thinks it is true for some special case,
> then it would be helpful to clarify.  Alternatively, perhaps
> defining terms more precisely would clarify things. 

In the case where you _want_ middleboxes to make decisions based on

I don't see how you can route, or make any decision based on something
that is not present, unless you have saved some state allowing you to
deduce that non-present thing.

Either you attach the name on every packet, or, the middlebox needs to
store some association.

This problem goes away if we are not intending the names to be something
middleboxes should route/make decisions on.

I like both approaches and am happy to explore them both.

// Javier