On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Dae Young KIM <dy...@cnu.kr> wrote: > 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.
that wasn't my point, my point was that walking into a room and calling a square an octagon confuses things. > > 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. > in the simplest example 1 interface. I would hope that with many interfaces there'd be only 1 'ID' and many combinations of ID and LOCATOR (one locator per 'network' that you connect to, the locator is the only thing relevant to 'routing' globally) > 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. ok, I was merely simplifying for the conversation to 1 interface. > 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 ASN is a simplification, I'm not sure that 'ASN' is the right construct, but in today's routing world it makes the conversation easier to just say: "routing by ASN", surely that's not the level of granularity we need, but it gets things started. > 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. this probably depends on where the ID becomes significant... and for host to host comms only the 'ID" matters (for the tcp/udp sessions as we know them today). > 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. ASN isn't granular enough for traffic engineering concerns (or doesnt' seem to be granular enough to me) > 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. a bit more. My reaction initially was to the seeming redefinition of the terms... from the above it seems like things line up decently well again (for me). -chris >> >> -chris > > -- > Regards, > > DY > http://cnu.kr/~dykim > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
