RE: [RRG] Long term clean-slate only for the RRG?

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>

    >> I don't consider the location/identity split a 'routing architecture'.
    >> It's an ancillary aspect of the overall system architecture
    >> ..
    >> To me, routing architectures are about things like 'what entity choses
    >> the path the packets flow along', and 'how are those paths computed',
    >> 'what data does that computation need', 'how is that data
    >> distributed', etc. 

    > routing and addressing are fundamentally inseparable

True, but addressing is just one aspect of a routing architecture - O() 20%
of the whole, I'd say.

    > a locator/identifier split is a major change in the addressing
    > architecture that will fundamentally change the scalability of the
    > routing subsystem.

Removing identification functionality from the routing-names makes their
assignment, etc, potentially more tractable. However, at the end of the day,
even with indentification functionality removed, you still have to figure out
lots of other things about routing-names: how you're going to assign them
(e.g. do they get renumbered automatically as topology changes, etc, etc);
how, and by whom, do abstraction naming boundaries get set; etc, etc. So
moving identification elsewhere isn't even the whole answer on routing-names,
let alone all of routing.


Look, I'm not trying to be a drip (although I'm probably succeeding all too
well). I just don't want us breaking our arms patting ourselves on the back.
Agreeing that we need separate namespaces for location and identity is nice,
but not exactly earth-shaking progress - altough in the I* these days, maybe
it actually is. :-(

	Noel


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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