On 2011-10-28 11:04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, October 27, 2011 14:08 -0700 Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
I request that the relevant authors and IETF working group
rename what it currently calls "LISP" to something else. To
put it politely, the IETF should be standing on the shoulders
of the giants who have laid the groundwork of the Internet,
not stepping on their toes.
I strongly support this.
More generally, I wish we would just stop using names for WGs
that are widely understood to mean something else in computer
science, software engineering, or networking. Despite good
intentions, it cannot be a mark of respect or homage when the WG
name overlays a term the refers to a particular invention or
development. At least IMO, the cuteness wears off very quickly
and only confusion or disrespect are left.
Especially since the IETF "LISP" is a misnomer; it is not a
locator/identifier split. It's a global locator to site locator
mapping. This was pointed out some time ago...
Brian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: draft-farinacci-lisp-00
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:32:16 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Organization: IBM
To: ram(_at_)iab(_dot_)org
Hi Dino, Vince and Dave O,
First, don't take this the wrong way, but I think your terminology is
broken.
To see what I mean, try the following substitutions:
EID -> SLOC (site locator)
RLOC -> GLOC (global locator)
Why? Because in fact, as you describe things, the SLOC (EID) is
a valid locator in the infrastructure of the end site, which might
by the way be an international corporate network. The GLOC (RLOC)
is a valid locator in the global Internet.
I can take this a little further. We could also imagine a
VLOC (VPN locator) which would apply on a VPN infrastructure,
but would logically be at the same level as a GLOC.
If you follow this logic and your mention of recursion, I think
you end up with xLOC where x stands for the routing context in
which the xLOC is used. You could certainly have a recursively
encapsulated packet GLOC.VLOC.SLOC.payload, for example.
Or alternatively you could say that in the case of a GLOC.SLOC.payload
packet, the Internet is the default VPN.
Apart from breaking your cute acronym, I don't think this
changes anything in your proposal. But I'm a bit leery of using
"ID/loc split" to describe what is actually a multi-level locator
scheme. (Which BTW I think is a very good approach, and I've thought
so since 1994.)
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf