No, I'm not in the camp of LISP. I'm not in HIT, either. All I'm agreeing to is just the idea that ID and Locator be separated.
And whatever the two group have been developing, if the definition is wrong, then it's wrong. Not everything IETF has developed is right in artchitectural sense. Some were fantastic, some were good, some were bad, and some were even totally nonsense. We're engineers and we're not perfect. LISP is not a bible. I don't feel any obligation to conform to their notion, if something does not make sense to me. Whatever I say seems to be non-sense to you or to the group, it's OK, you can just reject it. No problem for me. But before that let me make my arguments at least. On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Christopher Morrow but redefining doesn't help the conversation that's been ongoing here > for .... 3+ yrs. > > ID == host attachment point > OK. If you mean that there'd be only one host attachment point, it's OK. But if you'd say, since a host can be attached through multiple interfaces, there can be multiple IDs for a host, then I don't buy that. Then we mean different things by the same acronym. I think it was HIT which ever started this work of ID/Loc separation, and the definition of ID for them is, if I'm not wrong, a unique identifier for a host. And this ID is to be used in TCP connections throughout. This conforms to my idea, too. ID is host, and in normal operation, we'd expect there'd only one globally unique ID for a host. This is the definition I buy. > > Locator == network (or loosely ASN in today's bgp4 routed world) > Perhaps, then, you or the group or LISP means that the locator is a AS number(ASN). Then again, this is against my definition, and LISP got it wrong. When there arose discussions about ID/Loc separation even before HIT, Locator was meant to an address that IP would use in routing as it uses IPv4 or IPv6 as routing locator. In their context, routing here means both intra- and inter-domain. So, just as now, the locator (in fact IPv6 or IPv6 themselves in HIT) is used for routing, intra- and inter. Now, here goes the difference from HIT idea again. I would use locator (IPv4 or IPv6 address) for intra-domain routing, but not for inter-domain routing. For the Inter-domain routing, I would use ASN instead of the locators. In this sense, my idea and LISP's meet. Both uses ASN for inter-domain routing. So, perhaps, you can say my idea is mixture of HIT and LISP; like HIP for intra-domain routing, like LISP for inter-domain routing. I hope I made myself clearer. > > -chris > -- Regards, DY http://cnu.kr/~dykim
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
