Re: IP namespace

Christian Huitema <> Fri, 15 May 1992 07:34 UTC

Received: from by ietf.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00336; 15 May 92 3:34 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03566; 15 May 92 3:40 EDT
Received: from by NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03560; 15 May 92 3:40 EDT
Via:; Fri, 15 May 1992 08:29:33 +0100
X400-Received: by mta in /PRMD=UK.AC/ADMD= /C=GB/; Relayed; Fri, 15 May 1992 08:28:27 +0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/; Relayed; Fri, 15 May 1992 08:30:33 +0100
Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 07:28:27 +0000
X400-MTS-Identifier: [/PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;]
X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2)
Content-Identifier: Re: IP namesp...
From: Christian Huitema <>
Message-ID: <>
To: Anders Karlsson <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: Re: IP namespace
X-Mts: smtp

Anders Karlsson writes:

>I have been playing around with the directory as a tool for
>registering NSAP's.  With NSAP's I don't think there is the same need
>for a "longest match" search. The reason for this is that NSAP's (at
>least those we deal with) have a lot of "natural" points for delegation.

Humm. NSAP may have a lot of natural points of delegation, but the NSAP syntax
does not reflect this. The syntax per se can only be used to split the network in
two part - IDP and DSP. There is no unique way to split the DSP in many parts;
there are a number of proposed formats, e.g. ISODE, ECMA, IS-IS. But all these
tend to be IDP dependant. A "longest match" approach has at least the advantage of

Christian Huitema