Subject: [RAM] Crisper Terminology

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 10:11:08 -0400

> On 2007-06-07 18:17, HeinerHummel at aol.com wrote:
>> Maybe I don't understand the whole topic: Are we really after a  
>> loc/id-split or are we after a "2 locators"-addressing scheme ?

Later, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> That's not the topic of a draft supposedly about mapping, but it's  
> a good
> question. It's why I've asserted that LISP isn't really an id-loc  
> split
> at all. We need some agreed terminology.

I'd agree with Brian that LISP is a dual-locator scheme,
rather than an ID-Locator split.  This isn't criticism
of LISP, just an effort to have clear terminology so
that discussion can be clear and focused.

Yours,

Ran

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:22:31 -0400

On 06/08/2007 10:11 AM, RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote:
> I'd agree with Brian that LISP is a dual-locator scheme, rather than
> an ID-Locator split.  This isn't criticism of LISP, just an effort
> to have clear terminology so that discussion can be clear and
> focused.

Some approaches have IP-layer identifiers that are in fact pure
identifiers.  Others like LISP use locally-significant locators as
identifiers, when outside of their locator scope.   The syntax is the
same but the semantics are different [Noel: dessert vs appetizer].  I
don't believe we need new taxonomy for ID and RLOC, just to be clear
about how a name is being used at all times.  We could use terminology
for the different approaches -- Lixia and I are trying to work on that.

Scott

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:30:53 +0100

> that discussion can be clear and focused.

+1 on both counts.  And perhaps that's why it can be implemented off the 
box.

Eliot

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:33:37 -0400

On  8 Jun 2007, at 10:22, Scott W Brim wrote:
> same but the semantics are different [Noel: dessert vs appetizer].

If the semantics are different -- and I agree that they are --
then we ought to use a different term.  Again, this is not
criticising any idea, just seeking greater clarity in meaning
during discussions.

> I don't believe we need new taxonomy for ID and RLOC, just to be clear

I think that semantic overloading is a lot of how we got here,
so I do believe we need a taxonomy that uses different names
for objects with different semantics.

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:45:08 -0400

On 06/08/2007 11:33 AM, RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote:
> then we ought to use a different term.  

But we do: name (the generic term), locator (RLOC and all its other
names) and identifier.  In LISP, for example, between the source and
the ITR an IP address is an RLOC.  When it hits an ITR and a lookup
for an ETR is done, the IP address is used as an end system
identifier.  Is there an issue?

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:06:49 -0700

> identifier.  Is there an issue?

Scoot, you are right with respect to functionality abut not  
semantics. An RLOC is the output, or what you get back, when you do  
an EID lookup. So RLOCs are really locators "in the global routing  
space".

Between a source and an ITR, the addresses which are used are "scoped- 
routeable EIDs". Ditto on the destination site side from ETR to  
destination.

Dino