Subject: [rrg] Non-Groundhog Day Moment [Re: Terminology, 2nd pass]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:57:24 +1300

On 2009-03-31 05:59, Scott Brim wrote:

> Excerpts from Dino Farinacci on Mon, Mar 30, 2009 09:31:25AM -0700:
>> I think we need to keep all this terminology stuff simple. And not
>> have too many terms. What comes out of this group will pro-market or
>> negative-market locator/ID separation. And you don't want people to
>> react "this locator/ID separation stuff is more trouble then it is
>> worth".
> 
> For me it's about the meaning of 'locator/identifier separation', and
> mainly in endpoints.  The essential point is to get identification
> functions to stop using data that might have to change when topology
> changes.  

Thankyou! This is a great insight. I think we're seeing that all
these addressy-locatory-identifiery labels are a bit slippery and
can change their nature according to context and usage. But the function
that's using them needs to use the most stable label that has the correct
semantics for the specific use. And if it fails, it's always necessary to
go up a level and try again.

In primitive terms, in today's world:

if a MAC address fails, ARP again
if an IP address fails, DNS again
if an FQDN fails, Google again ;-)

In an ID/LOC split world:

if a MAC address fails, ARP again
if an IP-locator fails, map again
if an IP-identifier fails, DNS again
if an FQDN fails, Google again ;-)

    Brian

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:26:22 -0400

> if an FQDN fails, Google again ;-)

All true.  And if I need to give you a referral, I might include the
chain of fallbacks I would take if the "primary" name I give you
doesn't work.