Re: [rrg] LEIDs, SPI & ordinary IP addresses as both IDs & Locs

Noel,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:24 PM
> To: rrg@irtf.org
> Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [rrg] LEIDs, SPI & ordinary IP addresses as both IDs & Locs
> 
>     > From: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
> 
>     > if the LEID destination address is for a host in a network different
>     > from that of the sending host, then for part of the journey to the
>     > destination host, the LEID address has its Locator semantics
>     > interpreted by a new "Algorithm 2", which ITRs execute.
> 
> An LEID _has no general location semantics_.
> 
> The fact that you _always_ _have_ to do a mapping from an LEID, to get
> something that _does_ have full location semantics (the RLOC) is the surest
> sign of that.

That's not right. For example, if a hypothetical corporation
decided to tear down its enterprise network and rebuild it
from scratch, it could number the entire network out of EID
space only and never have to deploy a single RLOC internally.
Enterprise-local communications would then be routed based on
EIDs only, and they would never have to be mapped to RLOCs.
It is only for communications extending outside the enterprise
boundaries that an EID-to-RLOC mapping be necessary. So, EIDs
are routable (i.e., have location semantics) within a certain
scope, and in some cases that scope may be quite large.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> Saying that a particular name 'has location semantics' because there's a
> mapping system that translates that name into _another_ name, one which
> _does_ unquestionably have location semantics, is totally ludicrous. By that
> reasoning, DNS names have location semantics.
> 
> 	Noel
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg