RE: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Noel,

From my perspective, we've been quite consistent with
using locator for the topological naming for an interface, while
an identifier is the name for a host.

Yes, I realize that we haven't taken this quite as far
as you (or I) would like.  However, if you consider that we
have managed to get consensus on this much separation, I'd
say that we've come a long way, baby.

Tony


|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: J. Noel Chiappa [mailto:jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu] 
|  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:33 PM
|  To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|  Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
|  Subject: Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals
|  
|  
|      > From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com> 
|  
|      >>> An interface ID makes no sense to me.
|  
|      >> Perhaps because you, in contrast, are thinking of 
|  "ID" as "name with
|      >> no properties"? I think you will agree that 
|  interfaces do need names
|      >> of some sort - our familiar "locators" (i.e. an 
|  address which *only*
|      >> names an interface, and its location).
|  
|      > Actually I was thinking more of "makes no sense"= 
|  isn't useful in the
|      > context of id/loc split.
|  
|  Actually, now that I think about it some more, perhaps you 
|  had a completely
|  different meaning in mind here.
|  
|  Did you in fact mean to say that "I don't see any need to 
|  provide any kind of
|  name for interfaces, either one with topological 
|  significance, or any other
|  kind"?
|  
|  (The "name with topological significance for an interface" 
|  is what I've been
|  calling a "locator".)
|  
|  
|  In other words, when you talk about "id/loc split", are you 
|  thinking that
|  we'll have two different kinds of names for endpoints/stacks 
|  - "ids" which
|  are not related to any particular locations, and some sort 
|  of "location" name
|  which is?
|  
|  	Noel
|  
|