[e2e] a means to an end

[John Day]

I think you are worrying too much about longevity.  I would hope that 
at any point in time information is somewhere.  Perhaps even in 
multiple places.  This is why levels of indirection are so useful.

As for the purveying the OSI layers.  All 7 of them were wrong and 
long dead.  I don't mention them when I teach and frankly find it 
peculiar that how strongly everyone else seems to cling to the ideas 
of data link, network and transport layers.  How quaint!

But seriously, with traditional approaches to forwarding, the 
"location-ness" of the address is merely a means to keep the 
combinatorial computation of the forwarding table tractable.

Actually I agree entirely with what Van is saying although I think 
his focus is a bit narrow.



At 16:20 -0500 2008/11/06, David P. Reed wrote:
>Our dear friend, Van Jacobsen, has decided that layering "where" 
>under "what" with regard to data is neither necessary, nor a good 
>idea.
>
>I agree: confusing the container with the information it happens to 
>hold is a layer violation.  Information is not bound to place, nor 
>is there a primary instance.  Information is place-free, and perhaps 
>the idea that there must be a "place" where it "is" is an idea whose 
>time should pass, and the purveyors of that idea as a holy writ (the 
>OSI layering) retired to play golf.
>
>Craig Partridge wrote:
>>In message <49134E2F.8010704 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>>
>>
>>>Why should "location" be relevant to networking?   Must all wires 
>>>be buried permanently in the ground?  Does wireless and mobility 
>>>not occur?
>>>
>>
>>I think it is easier to see the merit of location when one thinks about
>>retrieving data.  You need some clue as to where the data is.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>