Subject: Re: [arch-d] On identifiers: what is virtual and what is global (was Re: thou...

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:00:46 -0500 (EST)

> From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>

    > what was being suggested by Hiener was to use a 4 byte ASN as part of
    > the 16 byte "address". If you do this _AND_ the same bit pattern is
    > used for both "routing-name" (what I call a locator) and
    > "application-name" (what I call an identifier), you have done nothing
    > to solve the problems that have triggered this whole discussion.

Indeed...

    >> If you meant "get a new IPvN address" (once IPvN addresses are
    >> actually location-independent names for higher-level entities), yes,
    >> we do want to avoid that.

    > I don't know the term "address" means in this context.

"IPvN" = "IPv4 or IPv6", so "IPvN address" = "IPv4 or IPv6 addresss". The
architecture/semantics of the two IPvN protocols are (currently) so similar
that when thinking at an architectural level they are the same.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss