Subject: [RAM] Binding

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:40:35 -0800

Re-reading RFC 1498 after John Day's message helped gel a set of
thoughts that has been sloshing around my brain as this discussion has
gone on.  I've tried to put that set into a short set of bullets
below, to see if it is the right high level connection between the
discussion and the engineering problem which is driving it.

* we can model identifiers as the binding of an object to a context,
or as Saltzer puts it in RFC 1498:

	It is more profitable instead to look upon all identifiers as
   	examples of a single phenomenon, and ask instead "where is the 
   	context in which a binding for this name (or address, or indentifier, 
	or whatever) will be found?", and "to what object, identified by 
	what  kind of name, is it therein bound?"

* the current Internet does not explicitly mark context

* the same bit pattern has been used in multiple contexts

* among the contexts in which that bit pattern has been used is one
which Saltzer called "route", associated with a binding service as
"Route service, to identify the paths that lead from the requestor's
attachment point to the ones found in 2".  2 is "node name location",
in Saltzer's terminology, and it identifies attachment points that
reach nodes that run services (his "service name").

* a current set of default-free zone operators believes that if they
deal only with the "route" context above, the summarization problem
that faces them will be more manageable.  This apparently derives from
a belief that some portion of the current summarization problem
derives from identifiers being present in the routing context because
they are present in other contexts and they cannot now be
distinguished or eliminated.

There are clearly other points that have been made here, and I'm not
trying to provide a summary of the whole to date.  I just want to make
sure I understand the tie-in between the architectural discussion and
the engineering driver.  Does that tie-in seem substantially correct?

			regards,
				Ted Hardie

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:26:32 +0100

> distinguished or eliminated.

I think that's an important point. Despite Noel's strictures, I
continue to use the forms "identifier-address" and "locator-address",
and effectively the routing explosion is due to identifier-addresses
appearing in a context where only locator-addresses are wanted.

    Brian

---

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:03:29 +0100

>appearing in a context where only locator-addresses are wanted.

Correct, but how do you manage mobility, etc. in an end to end and 
routing tables context? what ever the solution you know the final 
destination when you have reached the end.