Toni,
I think you are pursuing the wrong objective (which is global uniqueness of the identifier). There are millions of people with the surname Li and yet they aren't a serious problem for the postal services. IMHO ( I have expressed it many times and did also show how to get it done ) the Internet routing should also become as smart so that local uniqueness of any identifier will do. Remember MADCAP. It was a similar mad idea (RFC2730). It tried to manage a clash-free multicast address assignment - globally. It didn't fly at all. Heiner -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: Toni Stoev <[email protected]> An: IRTF RRG <[email protected]> Verschickt: Fr., 16. Jul. 2010, 16:29 Thema: Re: [rrg] Universally unique identifier Hi Klaas, On Friday 16 July 2010 at 15:57:06 Klaas Wierenga sent: > On 7/16/10 9:11 AM, Toni Stoev wrote: > > Hi Toni, > > Interesting idea, however I am not conviced that a hierarchic model is > desirable to guarantee uniqueness (I do understand the appeal, don't get > me wrong). What concerns me is the fact that if you take delegation far > enough you will end up with a very limited set of "N"-s per domain, and > thus the ability to track users. If we don't set unwise limits, like the domain name system doesn't, we have nothing to worry about. The market will regulate spanning. > Furthermore, I think the requirements for unique identifiers are not the > same as for domain names. Arguably the delegation of subdomains is meant > as a way to indicate some sort of subordinate relation, i.e. > sales.acme.com is the sales department of acme etc. For uniqueness of > identifiers I see no clear reason why you need a hierarchy, other than > to avoid collissions. I agree, the reason differs here. Hierachy is a good way to control distribution. > Don't you think it much easier to just use a method with a very low > probability of collissions and deal with those? With online distribution we have flexiblity. One can change the identifier at will. > Klaas Thanks Toni > > A universally unique identifier is needed to let nodes roam > > everywhere in the common network while preserving their ongoing > > communication sessions. To keep identifier unique a system for > > issuing, distribution and control over it is needed. The system has > > to provide uniqueness and also be flexible and robust. > > > > There is an acting solution with much the said characteristics. That > > is the DNS with its FQDN. The FQDN is by best effort universally > > unique. And the DNS has proven itself to be surviving and moreover > > prevailing. Because of node mobility the Dynamic DNS is the closer > > match. With this technology a node can change its topological > > location and retain a same identifier. But the FQDN is not quite > > suitable for the hereby projected usage. It is made out of names that > > are for human use. This not a networking best practice. > > > > So, can we turn the top supported network node identifier system into > > a useful solution for also session identification supplement? And > > how? > > > > Yes. By deciphering the N as "number". That's all to it. A dynamic > > domain number system can supply the desired network node identifier. > > The fully qualified domain number will be hierarchically structured, > > fairly distributed, unique. > > > > Dear fellow researchers, your choice is welcome. > > > > Toni _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
