> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Xu Xiaohu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Some other proposal does not need an > > id-locator mapping infrastructure. However, it requires every host to have > a > > FQDN name. In nature, the FQDN name plays the role of the identifier in the > > resolution infrastructure, on behave of the IDENTIFIER of the session. This > > way, two name entities together play the role of the identifier, with each > > one of them suitable for different context. > > If you you change the IP address so it has -only- locator semantics, > what makes you think a DNS A record -isn't- an id, and the DNS -isn't- > an id-locator mapping infrastructure?
Hi Bill, I agree with your points. But what I referred to in the above text is some proposal like GSE/ILNP in which the IP address is split into locator and identifier. Due to the lack of an independent id/locator mapping system, it still depends on the DNS to resolve the map between id and locator. And so it requires every host to have a FQDN name which, in nature, plays the role of the identifier to some extent. Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
