[e2e] a means to an end
dirk.trossen at bt.com
Fri Nov 7 01:54:15 PST 2008
indeed, you need to get to the rendezvous point that 'serves' your information, i.e., can match the consumers and producers and therefore build the delivery tree.
Conceptually, a particular rendezvous point implements a 'network of information' (being information in itself), i.e., you can identify the information network itself with an identifier (which is place-free) to which the rendezvous points serving this particular network of information, can subscribe. And you're back to information-centric routing without a-priori knowledge of location.
Of course, you need to get to the 'global' rendezvous system that helps you find the rendezvous point that serves the network in which your information reside. That's similar to a network attachment process in IP during which you receive local gateway information (DHCP). But that does not relate to any particular information at hand, only to enabling the general process of information retrieval.
More can be found indeed on http://www.psirp.org on these principles of building information-centric networks.
From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org on behalf of Craig Partridge
Sent: Thu 06/11/2008 21:30
To: David P. Reed
Cc: end2end-interest at postel.org
Subject: Re: [e2e] a means to an end
Interesting you invoked Van as it was a talk with Van last week that led to
my comment. I suspect this means you mean one thing by your comment and
I mean something else (i.e. we're in agreement but having a semantics
So let me try restating what I took from chatting with Van (with the
understanding that this is my take, not necessarily Van's).
* Information is place free.
* Actually accessing that information, in the worst case, requires
a rendezvous point (if it is popular data, it doesn't -- someone
near you will have a copy -- but information that is of only occasional
interest requires more effort).
* To get to the rendezvous point, you need some way to convert from the
name/label/ID of the information to a location of a rendezvous
point that knows where the information currently resides (or, better,
can get the information sent to you).
In message <49135FAA.6080603 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>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.
More information about the end2end-interest