Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ISTC.SRI.COM!zsu
From: zsu@ISTC.SRI.COM (Zaw-Sing Su)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: what is dynamic IP address assignment
Message-ID: <8810082236.AA02099@tsca.istc.sri.com>
Date: 8 Oct 88 22:36:33 GMT
References: <8810080321.AA29385@tsca.istc.sri.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29


Craig,

The two cases you mentioned imply different semantics for the "IP address".
In case (a), the IP address is in reality a name, while it is an honest,
goodness address for case (b).  [re: Shoch's classic paper on naming and
addressing]

I second Dave that your case (b) is far more interesting.  Our Reconstitution
(Routing) Protocol (RP) Program supported by RADC and SAC a few years
back tackled a solution to your case (b) right on.  It was a pioneering
effort in that direction.  Prototypes were built and capability of
our solution tackling your case (b) was successfully demonstrated in
a series of SAC C3 Experiments.  It is backward compatible across EGP
to the IP Internet.  Our basic approach was to separate the double
semantics (as a name as well as an address) IP address carries.  To
facilitate address changes, we used gateway-centric addressing (in
IP format) instead of network-centric as IP stands.  (Gateway-centric
addressing is a predecessor of Paul Tsuchiya's Landmark Routing, if
you are familiar with Paul's work.)

My assessment of that effort (could be very biased since I authored
RP protocol) is that it was (and still is, in my opinion) a promising
direction to pursue.  In spite of our success, further effort is necessary
to evaluate what have been achieved and how to bring it further into
a practical system.  Further research is clearly necessary for RP to
operate in a ubiquitous mobile environment which Dave alludes to.

Zaw-Sing