[e2e] a means to an end

dirk.trossen@bt.com dirk.trossen at bt.com
Fri Nov 7 01:47:01 PST 2008

it is certainly important as to 'where' information is, in the end. But the question is whether or not the 'where' needs unique addressing or not, in particular if you dynamically bind information to a potential delivery tree of information providers and consumers. What you need is the ability to form the delivery tree, which does not require unique addressing of the leafs of that tree.


-----Original Message-----
From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org on behalf of Karen R. Sollins
Sent: Thu 06/11/2008 22:09
To: Craig Partridge; David P. Reed
Cc: end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] a means to an end
Actually, no.  If you think about Van Jacobson's content centric 
networking in which one turns things upside down, one forwards 
information as much as possible, so that it is "everywhere" or at 
least broadly so.  Then location is  increasingly irrelevant.  Only 
the id (and other parts that he includes) really matter.

I realize that I am only scratching the surface of Van's perspective. 
He's the authority on it.  Another similar project is PSIRP 
(psirp.org).  There are probably others around too.


At 3:52 PM -0500 11/6/08, 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.

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list