Subject: Re: [rrg] Consensus check: terminology

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:21:30 -0400 (EDT)

> From: William Herrin <[email-masked]>

    > So you see an abnormality here, not a pattern in the evolution of
    > routing?

To paraphrase Saltzer ("[The confusion over terminology] also stems from
trying to discuss the issues with too few well-defined concepts at hand."),
I see architectural kludgery stemming from trying to do things with too few
well-designed mechanisms at hand.

In other words, when the only tool you've got is a hammer...

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:55:13 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>

    > Is a group address a locator or ID?

Well, as you point out, it has more of the characteristics of an identifier.
But really it's a 'group name', with quite different semantics from a 'host
identifier' - in IPv4 it just happens to live in the same namespace, but it
names a very different kind of thing.

	Noel