On Aug 1, 2008, at 4:35 AM, xuxiaohu 41208 wrote:
Reading the ILNP intro draft, I was already trying to remember the
locations/identities [*] of the most damning evaluations of
GSE/8+8 when this caught my eye:
Identifiers are unique within the context of a given
Locator; in many cases, Identifiers might happen to be
globally unique, but that is not a functional requirement
for this proposal.
This means that it won't be possible to learn the locators for a
given identifier through a lookup mechanism. So ILNP has many of the
same limitations of shim6: at least one working (!) locator must be
present in the DNS (or other address discovery mechanism).
Because of this and the use of dynamic DNS, basically, the FQDN is
the real identifier while the "I" is only a fixed-size handle that
conveniently fits in existing fields.
I also believe so. then my question is Does every host need a FQDN
name in the future?
Xiaohu XU
Looks like this question by Xiaohu has triggered a number of
exchanges in the last few days. As a side observer, it seems to me
there is a fair amount of "cross talk", perhaps partly due to unclear
context.
First, the above discussion refers to ILNP-enabled hosts, and I would
expect that ILNP-enabled hosts do have a FQDN name (so the question
itself seems an unnecessary generalization).
Second, the above question came from the discussion of draft-rja-ilnp-
intro-01.txt, yet Xiaohu's last msg asked
I'm confused by what you said. In Noel's Endpoint Name
draft, the first requirement for the host identifier is
global uniqueness. Is that wrong?
As I read it, Tony's comment referred to ILNP draft, yet the above
question seems forgotten where it was originated.
Lixia
--
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
