> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Robin Whittle [mailto:[email protected]]
> 发送时间: 2010年2月2日 20:18
> 收件人: [email protected]
> 抄送: Xu Xiaohu; 'Tony Li'
> 主题: Re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host idenfieirs//re:
A
> concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI
>
> Hi Xiaohu,
>
> From what I understand about ILNP, Tony is right to say the FQDN is
> not the Identifier. A FQDN lookup can return multiple Identifiers,
> each for a different host.
No. if you see the LP record and its usage (see the following quotes) in
ILNP, you will infer that the multiple identifiers associated with a given
FQDN belong to a single host, rather than different hosts.
"...In the new scheme, site multi-homing works in a similar manner,
with nodes having one Locator for each upstream connection to
the Internet. To avoid a DNS Update burst when a site or
subnetwork moves location, a DNS record optimisation is
possible. This would change the number of DNS Updates required
from Order(number of nodes at the site/subnetwork that moved)
to Order(1). [ILNP-DNS] "
"
2.3 "LP" Resource Record
(Description of "LP" record use goes here.)
An I record has the following logical components:
<domain-name> IN I <preference> <domain-name-2>
"
Xiaohu
> However, I think such problem such as you suggested exists with Name
> Based Sockets. I haven't yet recieved clarification from Christian,
> but see my concerns about his model:
>
> Role Level Name Based Sockets?
>
> Text name <---] FQDN
> Identifier <---]
> Locator <---- IPv6 address
>
> in: CES & CEE are completely different (graphs)
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05865.html
>
> - Robin
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
