IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Fri, 19 February 2010 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286CA28C136 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:22:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJdyg93kMRlM for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA853A682C for <rrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 65EB66BE587; Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:24:24 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20100219042424.65EB66BE587@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:24:24 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] LEIDs, SPI & ordinary IP addresses as both IDs & Locs
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:22:41 -0000

    > 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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email