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

[Alex Zinin <azinin@nexsi.com>]

Michel,

I'm catching up on the discussion after holidays, so bear
with me if I'm missing something...

> 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.

If you make EID (your PI address) "addressable" and expect it to be
usable by the endpoint to tell its routing names, then EID needs to
be routable (and assumably under any possible connectivity scenarios),
hence we seem to end up with the same problem---the routing system
has to handle non-connectivity-based addresses. My understanding
is that separating routing names from EIDs makes sense if the routing
system does not need to know anything about EIDs.

Regarding the question of whether EID->routing name mapping should
be done through DNS together with DN->EID mapping or through a
separate packet exchange. I think it is important to keep in mind
node mobility, where the node's routing name changes dynamically.
The relatively static nature of [at least] today DNS does not
converge well with possible dynamics of the routing name.

Alex.