Re: [rrg] Fwd: Propose a new proposal

HeinerHummel@aol.com Tue, 15 December 2009 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <HeinerHummel@aol.com>
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 AD7CC3A6ACE for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:08:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.378, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 toCCJP1sQ7bu for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (imr-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.206.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3FC3A6ABB for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:08:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id nBFI7epc002986; Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:07:40 -0500
Received: from HeinerHummel@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id 9.c53.5f80cfc5 (32915); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:07:35 -0500 (EST)
From: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Message-ID: <c53.5f80cfc5.38592a67@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:07:35 -0500
To: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rrg@irtf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1260900455"
X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5021
X-AOL-SENDER: HeinerHummel@aol.com
Subject: Re: [rrg] Fwd: Propose a new proposal
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: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:08:01 -0000

 
In einer eMail vom 15.12.2009 16:00:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu:

> From: heinerhummel@aol.com

> I have tried - in  vain - to convince people that a routable namespace a
> la  Manhattan, New York is better than using a non-routable namespace
> where you depend on mapping.

Perhaps they have not been  receptive because they would like _some_ names 
that
_stay the same when  they move to a different location_.

Noel



Something for sure has to stay the same when you move to a different  
location;  
which is the current IPv4, IPv6, plain HIT (even without IPv6 ?!! ), or  
FQDN (? if this is what Christian Vogt pursues?). Of course they should  stay. 

 
Hereby local significance for the IPv4-address would be  sufficient (the 
possibility of ambiguity is a) minor, and b) could be resolved  by respective 
standardized procedures).
 
I have always been talking in favor of an ADDITIONAL namespace.  
LISP is also introducing -POTENTIALLY- an additional namespace, which  
however is not routable (only mappable).
Heiner