Re: [rrg] Fwd: Propose a new proposal

[[e-mail]]

 
In einer eMail vom 15.12.2009 16:00:53 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[e-mail]:

> From: [e-mail]

> 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