[rrg] Folks might be interested in these comments [dave at farber.net: [IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split]

[Damian Lezama]

Hello,

I really don't see a contradiction between LOC/EID separation and John Day's
book. Just the opposite. What I understand is that en EID could be
considered as a "name" under the book's nomenclature (a terrible format for
a name, but you can always translate it to something you like) and a RLOC is
an "address". I know it's not exactly the same way the book puts it, but I
think it works, am I missing something here? Thanks.

Regards,
Damian

-----Original Message-----
From: rrg-bounces at irtf.org [mailto:rrg-bounces at irtf.org] On Behalf Of David
Meyer
Sent: October-30-08 7:53 AM
To: rrg at irtf.org
Subject: [rrg] Folks might be interested in these comments [dave at farber.net:
[IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split]


----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave at farber.net> -----
> From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
> To: ip <ip at v2.listbox.com>
> Subject: [IP] the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split
> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:54:17 -0400
> 
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: mo at ccr.org (Mike O'Dell)
> Date: October 29, 2008 8:28:25 PM EDT
> To: dave at farber.net
> Subject: the undead urban myth of the LOC/EID split
>
>
> Dave,
>
> an indulgence if you would.
>
> there is a persistent urban myth (which gets repeated here with some 
> frequency) which states that splitting "network addresses" into 
> location-dependent and location-independent components is the secret 
> to life, the universe, and everything.
>
> i know that myth quite well because once upon a time i subscribed to 
> it and made a serious proposal to do just that with IPv6.
>
> But if you want to find out why the myth is wrong and what it takes to 
> have it work right from first principles, you're going to have to read 
> a book that will likely take some work:
>
> 	"Patterns in Network Architecture:
> 	 A Return to Fundamentals"
> 	 	by John Day
>
> It contains more than a few deeply profound insights.
> Among other things, you'll discover why "global addresses" are an 
> abberation, and that "NAT" is an absolutely natural technique to use 
> in structure networks - it's just the introduction of an arbitrary 
> abstraction encapusulation. In fact, the ugliness of "NAT" is directly 
> related to how, uh, "unfortunate" the underlying architecture really 
> is.
>
> this is indeed a shameless plug for John's remarkable book.
> if you really want to know what a clean, deeply elegant network 
> architecture based on solid fundamentals can look like, read his book.
>
> 	cheers,
> 	-mo
>
> Full and Fair Disclosure:
> I reviewed the text along the way as a work in progress.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

----- End forwarded message -----