On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote: > >>> locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're > >>> location-independent > > >> Huh? Did you mean "identifiers are a lot easier to deal with > >> if they're location-independent"? > > > I really was talking about locators, not identifiers. > > Now that I understand what you actually meant, I'm not freaked out! > However, you phrased your point in a way that almost guaranteed > confusion! > > You didn't mean "locators are a lot easier to deal with if the name > has nothing to do with where the thing it names is", you meant > "locators are a lot easier to deal with if their meaning (i.e. the > thing they are bound to) is the same no matter where you are when > you evaluate them".
This is a problem for PIP-like schemes and mobility. At any point in the network, the locator to use to reach a particular target is unique. However, the locator to use to reach a particular target is different at every point. That would be okay except that when *I* move, the way I address a target changes. That's more of a problem than having to adjust as my target moves. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
