[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[RRG] Loc / Id split
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: [RRG] Loc / Id split
- From: Peter Sherbin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=AoNm9oFAMMiymCdzFaXR2Ad7JWO8Tt9n6FChjRzSckmJamDEPNALkwbihNRHtFz6wPGOiF5KxWAHhq7HvAcbltnqyX9YBrde0VwUhh68WGSEtl0aFFIP7LEcT4WFCTIAtiqNREC6+XR8KbclI7sLWs5PdU9Nljr++Z7/kguTEEg=;
- In-reply-to: <4602AD77.email@example.com>
From ietf-68/ram discussions loc/id split looks like the way people would want to
pursue. Assuming id = name, we have an opportunity to set a naming structure for
everything. Literally give a unique name to each and every thing we know. E.g. use
ASCII for a "bee" = "62:65:65" or "01100010 01100101 01100101".
Catalogs of name hierarchies exist for ages. Why do not formalize it once and for
all via a standard numbering convention.
Thus we will have ions of unique names. And than a few millions or billions of
locators/addresses. Combination Name + Locator = IPv6 source/destination descriptor.
IPv6 has enough room for names. If you think about it IPv6 designers were solving
naming problem rather than the locators' one.
Routing will not change other than a smaller table and removal of NAT. TE and
Multihoming suddenly become non-issues.
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg