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: 2019-Feb-10
Document File: 10 page(s) / 15K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

J. Saltzer: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC1498: DOI

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. This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 14% 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

Saltzer [Page 1]

RFC 1498 On the Naming and Binding of Network Destinations August 1993

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 are file names, unique identifiers, virtual and real memory addresses, page numbers, block numbers, I/O channel addresses, disk track addresses, a seemingly endless list. But most of that potential has long been rendered harmless by recognizing that the concept of binding provides a systematic way to think about naming [2]. (Shoch pointed out this opportunity to exploit the operating system concept; in this paper we make it the central...

Processing...
Loading...