Dave, If you are looking for stable identifiers for "stacks" (in the terminolgy of draft-irtf-nsrg-report-09.txt) it seems unlikely that an FQDN is a safe answer. FQDNs are (mis)used in many ways; a name like www.example.com certainly doesn't identify a given IP stack on a given interface on a given host and it may well resolve to different hosts at different times and places.
You could of course stretch this by a convention, but that would give you FQDNs along the lines of v6.i3.h37.www.example.com (the IPv6 stack on interface 3 of server 37 among all the servers pooled to provide the service called www.example.com). I don't see that this has any functional advantage over an IPv6 address for that stack, and it introduces a DNS dependency for the transport layer. Brian Dave Crocker wrote: > > Honest. I'm really sorry to have to send this query. > > In looking over various archives and documents, on the matter of separating > node address from node identifier, I have not been able to find or develop a > clear summary of the reasons the identifier cannot be a domain name. > > There are plenty of notes assuming that a new name space is needed. And there > are plenty of statements that say a new name space is needed because it will > make certain things better. > > But I have not seen a clear summary of what will be made better nor a clear > argument against using domain names, as the stable, public, > address-independent end-point identifier. > > I recall seeing a note from Christian Huitema that raised some interesting > concerns about using domain names, but I haven't been able to recover it. > > If the identifier is used only occasionally, such as at the start of an > association and during occasional state changes, then it is acceptable to have > the string be a bit long. If it must be in every packet, clearly it needs to > be short. If the identifier needs to be in every packet, then why? > > The string must be globally assigned only if it is needed for some sort of > rendezvous or third-party validation effort. Otherwise, the string can be > local to the association context, in the manner of purpose-built keys. > > So a new, global identifier space seems to be needed only if every packet is > subject to some sort of rendezvous or third-party validation. > > What am I missing? > > /d > -- > Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> > Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
