[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals

Iljitsch;

My primary interest is in having precise definitions that we all find
useful and use consistently. Some of the current versions of
definitions in the draft are:


Endpoint 


           refers to "the fundamental entity of and end-end
           communication" [EID]. It is an end-system that participates
           in an association. Endpoints are distinguished from
           intermediate, infrastructure nodes and from hosts.


An endpoint is an end-system but not a host: I think this isn't all that clear.

Why do you say "endpoint" only to confuse everything?

An entity at the Internetworking layer is the end system, which
is identified by an identifier at the Internetworking layer.

Just say "end systems".

In addition, layering allows various mapping of entities at
different layers, such as one to one, one to many, many to one,
many to many, none to many and so on that there is no point on
considering identifiers at other layers here.

For example, an application layer identifier of a mail address
may have no entity in the Internet, if the recipient is behind
NAT or UUCP gateway. Even a mail gateway, which is, though not
a mail recipient, an entity of the Internet, has many to many
mapping to mail domain through MX that there is no point using
identifiers at the Internetworking layer to identify an mail
address.

Personally, I prefer to talk about hosts, as this is a well-known concept. The fact that there is some ambiguity because hosts can be clustered and virtualized also isn't a huge surprise to most people, and can be spelled out for good measure.

"virtualize" means "as if it is real.

"virtualized host" means "muptiple entities behaving as if it is a
single host".

So, for the purpose of network protocol, treat it as a plain host.

All the rest is internal implementation details within a host.

There is no room of confusion.

Masataka Ohta