Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter on Thu, Jan 22, 2009 09:23:39AM +1300: > 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
Brian (aka Brain): While I agree with the original point, but on this point: all you need here is a level of indirection when mapping from name to interface. "Name" can be anything -- I don't see the difference if you start from a HI or a FQDN and take one step from it. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
