On 2009-12-15 05:20, Tony Li wrote:
> Michael Menth wrote:
>> Hi Lixia,
>>
>> do mapping systems also belong to the discussed proposals? I assume
>> they do not although a lot of the complexity taken out of the routing
>> is put into them? If I am wrong, I would like to add FIRMS to the list
>> of discussed proposals:
>> http://www3.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~menth/Publications/papers/Menth09-FIRMS.pdf
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> Mapping systems are obviously a component of a solution but are not by
> themselves a solution. To be considered seriously, they should be used
> in conjunction with some network layer solution.
Hmm. Don't you think that to some extent these should be orthogonal?
A mapping mechanism needs to meet the specific requirements of a network
layer mechanism, but that doesn't require the two to be irrevocably
bound to each other.
I have a feeling that the mapping system should be very general in
nature, in case the first cut at either the locator or identifier space
proves to fall short. Also I feel it should support hierarchy, even if
we don't need a hierarchy from the start.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
