Routing wars pending?

A FQDN is NOT useable as an EID. The host is not the endpoint.

Ok. FQDN + port number. The endpoint does not have to be *named*,
btw. It is quite enough to disallow TCP sessions to survice change
of source or destination TLA (which is more than enough to cover
the change of service providers) or to keep track of address changes
the same way the post service does (i.e. forward and ask the addressee
to notify the sender).

Consider process migration.

Any commercial OS out there which does process migration? Most
OS people became quite convinced that process migration does not
pay for itself.

Process migration is a lame excuse for building a whole new level
of indirection and doing a hell lot of changes everywhere.

And, magic cookie EID is *not necessary* for process migration (you
may want to read rationale for TRAP). It can (and should) be done w/o
it. No matter how you jump, the migration requires dynamical rebinding
of EID->TLA, and the complexity of the task does not depend on the
nature of EID. So why bother with extra level of indirection? It does
not simplify anything, and like any extra layer anywhere only makes for
a lot of headache (why do i think of ATM?).

And then, there's a document describing how to do process migration w/o
magic cookie EIDs, and so far nobody found a fundamental fault (or
inherent inefficiency) in it. As i discussed that with Noel the
aforementioned "architect's sense" came up :slight_smile:

The statement that migration is impossible w/o magic cookie EIDs amounts
to the denial of the existance of the postal service. It does the
two-level addressing (the EID is the identity of the addressee, the
TLA is the postal address). When you move your magazines keep coming
to you, right? Even if the "host" (i.e. home) didn't move with you.


PS Computer science is the formalized branch
  of general bureaucratology.