On 2009-01-22 08:24, Scott Brim wrote: > Excerpts from Xu Xiaohu on Mon, Jan 12, 2009 12:20:57PM +0800: >>>> What HIP gives you is an identifier that may be used for many >>>> things. An HI can be, but does not have to be, part of the >>>> process of initially finding a locator for an endpoint. For >>>> example, I can go straight from domain name to locator (which >>>> actually might be an agent / proxy / rendezvous point), and then >>>> validate identities via some other means. >>> Assuming I deem the DNS trustworthy, it seems much more natural to >>> treat the DNS as the source of an HI, and then for the locator to >>> be looked up as a function of the HI. I'm not saying your model >>> doesn't work, but surely the HI is fundamental and has universal >>> validity, and the locator (any of the locators) is transient and >>> has non-universal scope? So starting with a locator lookup seems >>> funny. >> I prefer Brain's opinion since there is no need for each host owns a >> FQDN name. Once you tell me your host ID, I can resolve your locator >> from a seperate ID/locator mapping system and then communicate with >> you. > > This is an interesting point. Thank you. >
It occurs to me that this would be particularly relevant to massive server virtualization (where a pool of physical servers synthesizes virtual servers as workload arrives). The virtual servers would each need an HI to locator map entry but would not particularly need an FQDN. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
