RE: Architectural approaches to multi6

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

No one uses FQDN's above IP till one gets to the Application layer.  Why
do you say this?

Also we need a solution that does not assume this at all.  Doing this
would at best be nice to have long term.

THere is also no way to enforce it.

/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:25 PM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Architectural approaches to multi6
> 
> 
> On dinsdag, maa 25, 2003, at 17:14 Europe/Amsterdam, Brian E 
> Carpenter 
> wrote:
> 
> >>>> 3: remove addresses from all places in the protocol 
> stack above the
> >>>> IP
> >>>>    layer. If higher layers are unaware of addresses and the 
> >>>> addresses
> >>>>    follow the topology, IP can route around failures by changing
> >>>>    addresses.
> 
> > We've been preaching against exposing addresses above the transport 
> > layer since RFC 1900 (dated 1996) at least. Little has 
> changed in the 
> > real world.
> 
> As far as I can tell, most people/applications use names rather than 
> addresses most of the time. The trouble is that protocols such as TCP 
> use the addresses in the IP header in their processing. If we make 
> these protocols look at something else (the FQDN, an address 
> that's not 
> in the IP header, ...) we are free to change addresses at any time 
> without breaking sessions.
> 
> >> And I have reason to believe transition won't be as hard as it may
> >> seem
> >> at first glance.
> 
> > Not sure I understand that statement.
> 
> Changing all references to addresses everywhere except in the 
> IP layer 
> is a huge undertaking. However, I think multihoming benefits can be 
> achieved before this process has been completed.
> 
> 
>