> From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
> even if IP had identifiers for hosts that were independent of
> locators, they wouldn' t be worth very much without a way to map them
> to locators. and locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're
> location-independent.
Huh? Did you mean "identifiers are a lot easier to deal with if they're
location-independent"?
yep.
If that wasn't a typo, and you really meant what you said, the whole *point*
of locators is to include location information. A "locator [which is]
location-independent" is an completely oxymoron.
what I mean is that a locator that means the same thing (refers to the
same destination) no matter where you are in the net, is a lot easier
to deal with than a locator with a meaning that changes (refers to
different destinations) depending on where you are in the net. for
example, you can use them in referrals (of which DNS is just one
example) without having to keep track of whether you've crossed an
addressing domain boundary.
a global IPv4 address is an example of the former, a private IPv4
address is an example of the latter.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf