[rrg] No liveness requirement in the ID/Loc Split concept

[Brian E Carpenter]

Eric,

(cross-post to lisp dropped)

On 2009-01-16 07:42, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
...
> 8) When RLOC-EID is done properly (e.g., like HIP where each concept
> appears on a different layer of the protocol stack), there is no
> liveness problem (nor can there be one). Rather, the "liveness problem"
> described in draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is a generic problem
> of map-and-encaps systems, not of RLOC-EID. The title and text of
> draft-meyer-loc-id-implications-00.txt is therefore inappropriately
> scoped as being caused by RLOC-EID when it is rather a common attribute
> of map-and-encaps. Note that LISP is a map-and-encaps system.

I've said from day one that LISP's use of the term 'EID' is incorrect,
and it should be replaced by something like 'local locator' or
'level 0 locator' or some such. So a more positive spin on your
subject line is 'Liveness requirement in multi-locator architectures'.
Which is of course something that has been discovered many times
and is very widely implemented in robust distributed systems.

Another positive spin is 'Mapping requirement in ID/Loc split concept'.

   Brian