Browse Prior Art Database

On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations (RFC1498)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002326D
Original Publication Date: 1993-Aug-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-12
Document File: 8 page(s) / 23K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Saltzer: AUTHOR

Abstract

This brief paper offers a perspective on the subject of names of destinations in data communication networks. It suggests two ideas: First, it is helpful to distinguish among four different kinds of objects that may be named as the destination of a packet in a network. Second, the operating system concept of binding is a useful way to describe the relations among the four kinds of objects. To illustrate the usefulness of this approach, the paper interprets some more subtle and confusing properties of two real-world network systems for naming destinations.

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 12% of the total text.

Network Working Group J. Saltzer

Request for Comments: 1498 M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science

August 1993

On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is

unlimited.

Abstract

This brief paper offers a perspective on the subject of names of

destinations in data communication networks. It suggests two ideas:

First, it is helpful to distinguish among four different kinds of

objects that may be named as the destination of a packet in a

network. Second, the operating system concept of binding is a useful

way to describe the relations among the four kinds of objects. To

illustrate the usefulness of this approach, the paper interprets some

more subtle and confusing properties of two real-world network

systems for naming destinations.

Note

This document was originally published in: "Local Computer Networks",

edited by P. Ravasio et al., North-Holland Publishing Company,

Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 311-317. Copyright IFIP, 1982. Permission is

granted by IFIP for reproduction for non-commercial purposes.

Permission to copy without fee this document is granted provided that

the copies are not made or distributed for commercial advantage, the

IFIP copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date

appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of IFIP. To

copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a specific permission.

This research was supported in part by the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency of the United States Government and monitored by the

Office of Naval Research under contract number N00014-75-C-0661.

What is the Problem?

Despite a very helpful effort of John Shoch [1] to impose some

organization on the discussion of names, addresses, and routes to

destinations in computer networks, these discussions continue to be

more confusing than one would expect. This confusion stems sometimes

from making too tight an association between various types of network

objects and the most common form for their names. It also stems from

trying to discuss the issues with too few well-defined concepts at

hand. This paper tries a different approach to develop insight, by

applying a perspective that has proven helpful in the corresponding

area of computer operating systems.

Operating systems have a similar potential for confusion concerning

names and addresses, since there ar...