> > |> It would seem like it would be no different than today. If > > |one had a host > > |> without a FQDN, then you would need to refer to it using a > > |full 128 bit > > |> locator and identifier. > > | > > |Provided there are some hosts without FQDNs, does that mean we need a > > |separate id/locator resolution infrastructure except the > > |current DNS system? > > > > > > Not at all. Such systems would be reachable via their explicit /128, just > > like today. This is just pure legacy IPv6 functionality. > > <obscenity> > > You can always fabricate a synthetic FQDN-like name for such an > address, if a new FQDN-based API requires it. Mine right now could be > 200282d8267c00000000000082d8267c.map6.arpa for example.
Hi Brian This idea is workable as ENUM. However, I wonder who will manage those mapping entries? 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
