[RRG] Should the identifier be used as local locator

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> No, no, a thousand times no. My point was NOT that you can ignore line
> 1 until condition X. My point was that you can remove line 1 from the
> envelope -completely- and the postal routing system still delivers the
> letter correctly.
> Drawing the analogy back to it's origin, my point was that in a
> clean-slate system, node identity doesn't belong at layer 3. It
> belongs above layer 3, either in a layer 3b or in layer 4. ONLY
> network location belongs in layer 3. And network location is a
> fundamentally ephemeral thing; it changes constantly with your node's
> geographical movement and with the the ups and downs of the network's
> interconnections.

As for a clear-slate system, should the identifier be used for local
locator?

Take GSE/ILNP as an example, the so-called identifier is still used as
routing hint in the site networks, you can say this identifier is used as
local locator, or you can say it's routing on identifier. In relative fixed
networks, the identifier can still be aggregated in the local routing table.
However, in a relative mobile networks, the routing is based on the flat
identifier (just like current Ethernet switching). The scalability of the
routing on flat identifier depends on the scale of the site networks.

From this above point of view, the line 1 "name" from the envelope can not
be removed. My doubt is whether it is preferable for the identifier to play
the role of locator in the site networks.

Xiaohu XU



--
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