RE: GSE

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Well, I can't claim to be Noel, but I'll assert the following:

From an _engineering_ viewpoint, the hostname is not easy
to manipulate as an identifier.  It is variable length and
we've decided on a fixed length field in our headers.  If it
is of any length at all, it's likely to be longer than a 
numeric identifier would be and in that sense is inefficient.

However, a numeric identifier of sufficient and fixed length
that had a 1:1 mapping with hostnames would work perfectly.

Tony

|   On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
|   
|   >   I do remain completely convinced that we *do* need to 
|   separate host
|   >   identification from routing-names, but my enthusiasm 
|   comes from a broad
|   >   architectural perspective, not a particular case (such 
|   as multi-homing).
|   
|   > And I will further add that I think those two functions 
|   are best served by
|   > separate namespaces (i.e. different syntax and semantics).
|   
|   As our acting architectural conscience, what is your opinion on the
|   principal of making the full hostname the identifier?
|   
|   I think if we develop this further we'll end up with stuff 
|   that pretty
|   much does all the multi-address tricks we've been 
|   discussing here the
|   last weeks, but it should all be much cleaner, except for the places
|   where backward compatibility is especially difficult.
|   
|   
|   
|