At 12:53 PM +0200 4/10/02, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com> writes:
>> Specifically, one could envision an architecture, where mobility is
>> absolutely transparent to the routing system by making address be
>> always topologically signi- ficant and having a separate mechanism
>> for name-to-address mapping...
>
>Following this line, is it possible to imagine an architecture where
>addresses are topologically significant and prefixes are also
>topologically significant? And then having a mechanism for
>name-to-prefix mapping?
>
>I might be far off from what "topologically significant" means
>exactly.
>
>Alex
Could you clarify what you mean by name? I think of it as a
persistent host identifier without topological significance. It MAY
map to a persistent ("static") address, or its mapping may change
over time (rapidly in applications such as cellular).
Again, forgive me if I am misreading you, but I'm unclear about the
distinction between prefix and address. I tend to think of a prefix
as a subset of an address. However, it's an interesting idea if you
are thinking of the prefix as that which a directory system returns
on a name search, and detailed name to address mapping becomes a
local domain matter (dare I say MX-record-like?).
Another way I read this was that the host registers with a domain,
which assigns it a prefix (where the low-order part of the address
comes from is TBD).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT