[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
On 6 aug 2008, at 8:11, Tony Li wrote:
It's not clear to me that you ever have to do a pure identifier to
lookup. This is especially true since locators are only locally
Locators are only locally unique? Isn't the whole point of a locator
to get you where you want to be, not to a location which may or may
not be the one you wanted to be but with the same name as the one
where you want to be?
In my opinion, non-unique identifiers are not really any better than a
locator/identifier overload like we have today. Maybe it can be made
to work, but you're forever stuck with accommodating this limitation.
Case in point: shim6. It doesn't support setting up sessions if you
don't have a working locator because it can't do an identifier-to-
Thus, you always need to have a locator identifier pair before
lookup, presumably to determine alternate locators. Once you have
pair, you could do a reverse lookup to determine a name (and any
do) and then do a forward lookup to determine the locator set.
In other words: the FQDN is the real identifier and the value in the
bottom 64 bits of the address field is meaningless.
Note that reliably providing reverse lookup DNS service with IPv6
isn't entirely trivial.
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com 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