Geoff, Stewart, all,
Linking in the arch-d list, following Eliot's intention to widen the audience
for input.
Let me come back to your statement "My point is that the semantic construct of
an “address” does not limit or predetermine which of these models your network
must use, nor does a netwo
Apologies, the below should read " then the question arises how much of an
ephemeral nature we see in the relations between a client and an egress ", of
course.
-Original Message-
From: Dirk Trossen
Sent: 26 January 2022 10:21
To: 'Geoff Huston' ; Stewart Bryant
Cc: int-area@ietf.org;
Hello,
The discussion reminds me of several points made in rather old articles
questioning the notion of addressing and the relationship with naming.
- Hauzeur, Bernard M. "A model for naming, addressing and routing." ACM
Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 4.4 (1986): 293-311.
(https:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for forwarding to COIN (and thanks to Marie-Jose for flagging the
overlap). As with all these types of thread, it is hard to know where to send
responses, and we end up copying an ever-increasing set of mailing lists. Truly
sorry for that.
Dave, I think you are right to d
> On 26 Jan 2022, at 5:24 pm, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> [copy architecture-discuss]
>
> Geoff,
>
> This is a pretty good characterization. In fact, it's exactly where we went
> in the NSRG nearly 20 years ago, just after MO first kicked out 8+8. For
> people's reference, we looked at naming at
Hi Geoff,
Thanks for the thoughts below, which is much aligned with previous interactions
on the development of the current Internet. Please see inline.
Best,
Dirk
-Original Message-
From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
Sent: 26 January 2022 20:35
