Lixia -
I certainly agree with your winning strategy. And if you prefer
not to
discuss identifiers on this mailing list, so be it.
it is not an issue of any individual's preference. Rather,
- this list got its own mission to accomplish;
Of course. But keep in mind that there is a group of people in RRG who
believe that identifier-locator separation can accomplish our mission.
Devising a suitable identifier-locator separation solution, in turn,
requires some discussion of the type we were having.
and perhaps more importantly,
- it is unclear whether people who know more about the higher level
requirements on identifiers are watching this list.
This may indeed be an issue, I agree. But the conclusion from this
should be different, in my opinion. We should motivate more good people
to participate in this discussion, not give up the discussion.
I still would like to observe, though, that a good understanding of
what
needs to be identified may prove helpful in devising the locators
that
must lead to the things being identified.
agree on the good understanding part. I avoid the word "locator", as
what we have in hand is simply IP addresses, whose basic function is
to
identify the attachment point of destinations to which IP packets are
delivered, independent from which identifier resolved to that delivery
address.
This makes sense. Any viable solution to the routing scalability
problem will have to use IP addresses as locators, since this is a
prerequisite for incremental deployability.
- Christian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
