Re: [RAM] Comment on draft-farinacci-lisp-00.txt (LISP)

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

    > From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov at juniper.net>

    >> My guess is that the architectural commonality between LISP
    >> 1/1.5/etc and the eventual deployed stuff is likely to be:
    >> ..
    >> - End-end names are mapped into new locators as they cross the
    >> boundary

    > What you called "end-end names" are not really "end-end names" but
    > locators.

In the current "classic" IPvN architecture, yes, the end-end names are also
locators. In LISP:

    > It just the scope of these locators is not the whole Internet.

The end-end names in LISP are also locators with local scope, it is true.
However, they are *principally* end-end names.

And as I said a while back (to Ran Atkinson, if memory serves), over time,
it's possible that the LISP mapping function would move closer and close to
the hosts, which would mean that the scope of those locally-significant
locators would get smaller and smaller. The limit of this process is clear:
is a "locator" with zero scope really a locator?

All the while, their end-end naming function would remain unchanged, which
is why I think of them as *principally* end-end names.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram