Subject: [lisp] [[email-masked]: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept]

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:40:44 -0800

----- Forwarded message from Scott Brim <[email-masked]> -----

> From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:46:15 -0500
> Mail-Followup-To: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>,
> 	Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>,
> 	"Fleischman, Eric" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> 
> Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Fri, Jan 16, 2009 08:36:16AM +1300:
> > On 2009-01-16 07:42, Fleischman, Eric wrote: ...
> > > 8) When RLOC-EID is done properly (e.g., like HIP where each
> > > concept appears on a different layer of the protocol stack), there
> > > is no liveness problem (nor can there be one). Rather, the
> > > "liveness problem" described in
> > > draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is a generic problem of
> > > map-and-encaps systems, not of RLOC-EID. The title and text of
> > > draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is therefore
> > > inappropriately scoped as being caused by RLOC-EID when it is
> > > rather a common attribute of map-and-encaps. Note that LISP is a
> > > map-and-encaps system.
> > 
> > I've said from day one that LISP's use of the term 'EID' is
> > incorrect, and it should be replaced by something like 'local
> > locator' or 'level 0 locator' or some such. So a more positive spin
> > on your subject line is 'Liveness requirement in multi-locator
> > architectures'.  Which is of course something that has been
> > discovered many times and is very widely implemented in robust
> > distributed systems.
> 
> Identifier/locator separation makes the problem possible, and it can
> make it possible at any point in the network.  At any point we can
> have a separation of 
> 
>   - a name the packets are trying to get to
>   - a name for a point in the network via which they can be delivered
> 
> and the problems are similar in all cases, whether you use
> "identifier" and "locator" to name the things or not.
> 
> > Another positive spin is 'Mapping requirement in ID/Loc split
> > concept'.
> 
> Mapping is just part of the problem.  You can map to all possible
> paths, but you have to establish a session in the face of all the
> choices, and track and recover from failures.
> 
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp