On 2008-08-06 14:03, Xu Xiaohu wrote: >>> |> 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?
They don't need managing; they aren't really in the DNS, but are purely synthetic. (Which means they can't be validated with DNSSEC and there will be no reverse DNS.) But a resolver could be faked to "resolve" them into a AAAA reply. It's a horrible idea ;-) Brian -- 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
