At 08:15 AM 12/4/00 -0500, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On the other hand, this thread was triggered by Graham's question about
>the negative impact of partitioning. The postal example would seem to
>show that the effect is not so bad.
>
>Except I would claim that it is not partitioning. Note that an address
>always has a global representation, in addition to a possibly different
>local one.
You're right, it's not strictly partitioning...
>Perhaps that can reconciled as easily as claiming that any 'local' domain
>name must also have a global form? (But, somehow, the word "scaling" gets
>in the way of believing that.)
... when I asked that question, I had in mind something like Tim Berners
Lee presented about at the WWW5 conference in 1996, in which connectivity
between communities might be seen as having a fractal structure, with
groupings and lines of communication between groups visible at a range of
scales. I think this is, in part, how people achieve flexible scalability
in their communications. (Similar patterns also arise in natural phenomena).
#g
--
BTW, the basic tenet of end-to-end connectivity of data and services is, I
think, satisfied by the IP layer. Part of my question was about the extent
to which this end-to-end-ness needs to be duplicated at higher layers.
------------
Graham Klyne
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
