Alex,
[...]
> I would suggest that requirements for future routing architectures (be
> it group a or b) should give clues about how to address certain issues
> and help making distinctions. Or at least give a sense of what are
> the wisest architectural choices that should be made when designing
> for mobility.
I think it might be unwise for any type of requirements to suggest
or presuppose specific ways addressing the issues. On the other hand,
a discussion on what's considered good and bad in general might be ok.
[...]
>> Regarding name-to-prefix mapping... A name and an address are
>> properties of a specific node, similarly to a DNS-name and IP
>> address. I guess for MONET, one could envision something like part
>> of name being a group id and its mapping to a prefix changing
>> dynamically, while the rest is a host id and its mapping to the rest
>> of address being more stable... but then I might not have had enough
>> of my morning tea...
> That's an interesting idea to address in monet, indeed. Provided that
> changing dynamically DNS name-address pairs for networks is feasible.
> Or, provided that future routing architectures will be part of an
> Internet where naming schemes allow names for networks (not only for
> hosts).
Actually I didn't mean DNS there. By name I mean a permanent host ID.
Theoretically, DNS resolve could return the host ID and then another
method could be used to find the actual routing address based on it.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT