[e2e] node addresses vs. interface addresses

[Roop Mukherjee]

Do you or anyone else in the list have a copy of Shoch's paper? IEEE 
doesn't have COMPCON fall 78 online (however it does have 77). I haven't had 
any success in locating it and would appreciate any help.

Here is a bib entry for it:
Shoch, John F., "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing,"
IEEE Proc. COMPCON Fall 1978, pp. 72-79. Also in Thurber, K.
(ed.), Tutorial: Distributed Processor Communication
Architecture, IEEE Publ. #EHO 152-9, 1979, pp. 280-287.
 
Thanks,
-- Roop

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:

>     > From: Roop Mukherjee <bmukherj at shoshin.uwaterloo.ca>
> 
>     > Why do IP interfaces have addresses not the nodes themselves? Is there
>     > an architectural reason for this? I thought since people here seem to
>     > have a better perspective of the history of IP
> 
> Actually, in the beginning (especially back in the ARPANet), the distinction
> between the two wasn't at all clear. That lack of clarity carried across to
> the early TCP/IP work. To the best of my (admittedly now dim due to the
> passage of time) memory, the question of whether to name them from separate
> namespaces simply never even came up.
> 
> The first person I know of to clarify that we needed to think of them
> separately was (as usual!) Jerry Saltzer, in his 1982 paper "On the Naming
> and Binding of Network Destinations", now available as RFC 1498.
> 
> As things stand, it's not completely true that interfaces completely "own"
> the addresses - there are many places in the architecture (e.g. the TCP
> checksum pseudo-header) where the IP address is used to identify a host
> (with consequent problems).
> 
> This continuing confusion over whether IP addresses name hosts or interfaces
> causes problems in numerous places, e.g. multi-homing, mobility, etc, etc.
> Had we to do it all over again, I suspect we'd have a separate namespace for
> each of them.
> 
> 	Noel
> 

-- 
-- Roop
________________________________________