IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 19 January 2009 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <rrg-bounces@irtf.org>
X-Original-To: rrg-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rrg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2B33A69EB; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:25 -0800 (PST)
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 088983A69EB for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 ccGXbuHdGBfa for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE7A3A68C9 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f6so2882727rvb.7 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wr4SlF0zJYv9xTBOsObYmB8bYPl7hawpInIgB7vUjlo=; b=hpwZ0IVF3WSkcMQ+ajbgJB1ZsPtNer7MsfkfdoHGPVnn3131uW/7YyhibLashZ5s8o p87NeVCNBaEUPBOoN43rIzta4a18xSQRFnjKlv1XvEW7+CMphedsXoaiW8Swn8kxXDWJ SekrofpZR43F9/Wsf7M1O3vnp6zpkEu8iez08=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZefSURG0jdKv9/DwOfaIySO8E6RvQIYruTRLRyEBDCMNbSKZFTMchUETtvwxB5IsjF nHV480g+vIEMYf1RLLjU/O04gUf77BqKYpSAxhtDEh242nwH1vrfoLpV18tcU7ZUrq5Q zjG8Fvcg4m6Y1PcyWCXvyh+WHug++IQcOwanc=
Received: by 10.141.48.6 with SMTP id a6mr2560020rvk.161.1232332086352; Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f21sm8900506rvb.7.2009.01.18.18.28.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:28:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4973E52E.8000407@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:27:58 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20090116054647.626B56BE594@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20090116054647.626B56BE594@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rrg-bounces@irtf.org
Errors-To: rrg-bounces@irtf.org

Noel,

On 2009-01-16 18:46, Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
> There is no one-word description/term which _exactly_ describes a LISP EID;
> it's a bit of a kludge (precisely because of installed base issues). To be
> maximally precise, a LISP 'EID' is 'a globally-unique endpoint name with
> topological significance within a local scope only'.

I totally agree with that. My understanding of 'EID' has always
been that it has no topological significance at all, and indeed
that it identifies a stack rather than an interface. That's
where I'm quarrelling with the LISP usage.

It's a shame that draft-irtf-nsrg-report never made it.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email