IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RAM] Crisper Terminology

Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org> Fri, 08 June 2007 14:23 UTC

Return-path: <ram-bounces@iab.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwfNN-0002pu-0S; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:23:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwfNL-0002pp-VK for ram@iab.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:23:39 -0400
Received: from ind-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.104.129.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HwfNK-0002vi-4o for ram@iab.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:23:39 -0400
Received: from hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com ([10.75.231.161]) by ind-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jun 2007 08:50:08 +0530
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,400,1175452200"; d="scan'208"; a="81755132:sNHT52903806"
Received: from hkg-core-1.cisco.com (hkg-core-1.cisco.com [64.104.123.94]) by hkg-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l58ENYIq028155; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:23:34 +0800
Received: from xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com (xbh-hkg-411.cisco.com [64.104.123.72]) by hkg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l58ENSq2023213; Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:23:33 GMT
Received: from xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com ([64.104.123.70]) by xbh-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:23:27 +0800
Received: from [10.66.254.216] ([10.66.254.216]) by xfe-hkg-411.apac.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Jun 2007 22:23:24 +0800
Message-ID: <46696627.7010407@employees.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:22:31 -0400
From: Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>
Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070326 Thunderbird/2.0.0.0 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RAM] Crisper Terminology
References: <1441B660-CC5A-441D-8D72-724560E50008@extremenetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <1441B660-CC5A-441D-8D72-724560E50008@extremenetworks.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2007 14:23:27.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[9463D870:01C7A9D8]
Authentication-Results: hkg-dkim-1; header.From=swb@employees.org; dkim=neutral
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc: ram@iab.org
X-BeenThere: ram@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-Post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ram-bounces@iab.org

On 06/08/2007 10:11 AM, RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote:
> I'd agree with Brian that LISP is a dual-locator scheme, rather than
> an ID-Locator split.  This isn't criticism of LISP, just an effort
> to have clear terminology so that discussion can be clear and
> focused.

Some approaches have IP-layer identifiers that are in fact pure
identifiers.  Others like LISP use locally-significant locators as
identifiers, when outside of their locator scope.   The syntax is the
same but the semantics are different [Noel: dessert vs appetizer].  I
don't believe we need new taxonomy for ID and RLOC, just to be clear
about how a name is being used at all times.  We could use terminology
for the different approaches -- Lixia and I are trying to work on that.

Scott


_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status