> From: Christian Vogt <[email protected]>
> I agree that it would be useful to have locators which route to a given
> host -- or better: to a given stack, since this is the entity through
> which one must pass to reach a given service or session.
I've always had this degree of ambivalent feelings about this concept, that
locators can identify 'things' inside a host.
I've always felt like 'the job of the routing is to deliver the packets to
the right network interface, and once that's done, its job is over'. From
then on, it should be the next layer up's job to do demultiplexing - perhaps
with what I have called a Endpoint Selectors (ESEL - a short identifier, with
scope limited to a single interface, which can get a packet to whichever of
several endpoints is sharing a particular interface).
I guess the best counter-argument I've heard is that if you have a 'virtual
machine' setup, each virtual machine thinks it has a virtual network
interface, and that virtual interface needs its interface name. (You can just
do it with ESELs, since each VM would think it's managing the ESEL namespace,
and you could get clashes.) So that would mean that inside the VM system,
packets would have to be 'routed' to the correct VM.
Do note that if we want to support that model (locators for VIs on VMs), that
probably does imply variable length locators... (ducks :-)
Noel
PS: Nobody has any reaction to my comments about models for connectivity?
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
