> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: rrg-boun...@irtf.org [mailto:rrg-boun...@irtf.org] 代表 Tony Li > 发送时间: 2010年2月2日 14:24 > 收件人: rrg@irtf.org > 主题: Re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host idenfieirs//re: A > concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > > If I understood ILNP correctly, each ILNP host needs a globally unique FQDN. > > That’s to say, the FQDN can not be used as a service ID to represent a set > > of ILNP servers which are scattered in the Internet. As a result, the above > > load-balancing service through DNS is not available anymore in the ILNP > > architecture. Maybe another indirection from one FQDN (representing a > > Service ID) to another one (representing a Host ID) should be developed in > > order to support the above service. > > > Hi, > > That's an interesting interpretation. > > ILNP uses an explicit numeric token as the identifier. The FQDN is not > the identifier. The identifier can be found in the I record. > > On a forward reference, a FQDN is resolved into an I record and one or > more L records. In the case of a service name, it is not unreasonable > for DNS to return multiple I records, each with an associated set of L > records. This is not explicitly called out in the current ILNP > documentation, but is a reasonable extrapolation from current usage, > plus the existing documents.
Interesting, is there any association between the I record and the L record? Best wishes, Xiaohu > Regards, > Tony > > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > rrg@irtf.org > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
