Re: [rrg] Constraints due to the need for widespread voluntary adoption

[Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]>]

Put it in another way using the terms in this community:

    - Do routing with ID.
    - Do away with Locator. It's redundant. It should belong to the layer
below. And locator's change in every segment of networks.

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Dae Young KIM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Noel Chiappa <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Since "address" to most people does mean a 'name' (in the generic sense of
>> "name") with some location information in it, I am going to assume that
>> your
>> "ID" means a name which is location dependent.
>>
>
> No, my 'ID' means a name which is location 'independent'.
>
>>
>> That means the "ID" will have to change if the host is attached to the
>> network in a different place; and the experience of the past decade or two
>> is
>> that this is not acceptable to the users. They want something _in
>> addition_
>> to DNS names which does not have to change when the host is attached in a
>> new
>> location.
>>
>
> No, in one preferred model, ID does not change along the networks. If I'd
> try to stick to the 'usual usage of terms' in this community, only the
> 'locator' changes according to the network which they attach to.
>
>>
>>    > ID -> locator; this is not the job of Internet layer. In this
>> context,
>>    > the locator here is to me the address of the underlying layer,
>>
>> To most of us, 'locator' means a 'name' with global semantics; i.e. it can
>> name a location anywhere in the internetwork, and it can be understood
>> anywhere in the network, and things everwhere will interpret a given
>> locator
>> to mean the same location.
>>
>
> Here, we're clearly apart. To me, locator need not be globally unique. It
> can change across networks. Each 'enterprise network' may use its own local
> locator name space. At each network boundaries through routing, you just
> change to a new locator in the new (transit or stub) network. All along,
> however, your ID will remain constant.
>
>>
>> Redefining terms to your own private definition is not very useful for
>> clear
>> communication.
>
>
> OK, agree. Will refrain from doing that as long as I'm discussing in this
> community.
>
>
>> Terms that mean what you seem to mean here are things like
>> 'MAC address' or 'physical network address'.
>>
>
> Yes. In fact, now that you have an ID, there's no need to have something
> like 'PoA' address separately in the same layer. You just rely on your
> underlying layer to deliver your packet through it's underlying layer to my
> next hop in my routing table. So, all I need is
>
>      - mapping from my (source) ID to the subnetwork address (or MAC addr
> or physical addr according to your examples)
>
>      - and also mapping from the ID of my next hop in my 'internet layer'
> routing table to the subnetwork address (MAC or physical address) of that
> very next hop
>
>      - at reception of my packet, my next hop (router) will look into the
> ID of my intended final destination ID and decide to which next hop (node or
> router) the packet has to be relayed
>
>       - and the whole process above repeats.
>
>>
>>    > To me, they're one and the same thing. There's no routing without
>>    > identifying your partner. There's no identifying your partner without
>>    > routing to, i.e., without locating it. The two are one and the same.
>>
>> Ah, no. I am "J. Noel Chiappa" no matter where I am, and you can identify
>> me without knowing either i) where I am, or ii) how to get there.
>>
>
> OK, you're talking about DNS name(or URI?). Noel is the 'DNS' name which,
> of course, is unique independently of whatsovever.
>
> Then, we said DNS name should be mapped to ID. (Noel to 234 Madison Ave.).
> There's no routing (or better said locating?) without identifying your
> house. There's no identifying your house without successfully locating it.
>
>
> >You might be interested in reading IEN-19, "Inter-Network Naming,
> Addressing,
>
>> and Routing"; although it is very old (and thus somewhat out of date), it
>> is
>> still full of useful insight on these ideas. RFC-1498, "On the Naming and
>> Binding of Network Destinations", is also very important.
>>
>
> Thank you for the reference. Only that who wrote it, and whether I buy that
> concept.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> DY
> http://cnu.kr/~dykim <http://cnu.kr/%7Edykim>
>



-- 
Regards,

DY
http://cnu.kr/~dykim