RE: Missing DNS reqt? [was Re: (multi6) requirements draft comments]

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

J. Noel,

> J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
> If there's a good reason to pay the cost of an extra
> packet exchange on a normal connection setup, then OK
> - but let's do it after careful analysis indicates it's
> worth it, not just off the top of our heads.

These days, one more packet is a drop is the sea. On a typical
web page, there are a zillion references to other FQDNs that
each require a DNS query and a gazillion 3-pixel wide jpegs
that the trained brain of the heavy surfer does not even see that
each require establishing and tearing down a TCP connection.

My take is: if it's ONE extra packet, no point even discussing it.
More than ten packets, let's talk about it.


> (This is all separate from the issue of *whether* one would even
> want to be able to look in a directory, based on an endpoint name,
> and find the location(s) of that endpoint. One might use such a
> capability for error recovery, fault analysis, etc, etc. Most
> people, when asked this, say "Of course we want to be able to do
> that", but I'm frankly of two minds about it. The question is
> whether the expense of maintaining that directory - and it
> will be considerable - is worth it.)

It does not need to be a centralized directory. If the endpoint "name"
is addressable (I do not like "name" in this context as it implies
DNS but I will keep it for consitency) the endpoint itself can answer
queries about its own locations <== (more than one).

In the concept I propose, what you call name is a PI address, and
its locations are several PA addresses. The key is to make the name
itself addressable.

Michel.

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-py-multi6-mhtp-01.txt