RE: noid and applications (generic requirements from applications)

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

Patrik,

That is going to be exceedingly difficult.  As long as we
are using IP addresses in applications and we are hiding
the actual reachability of the address from the application,
we are guaranteed to be allowing an application to pass along
an unreachable address.

Note that this is a result of the layering violation of
passing around an IP address in the application.  Asking us
to warp the world to support architectural mistakes strikes
me as suboptimal.

Regards,
Tony

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] 
|  Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 8:08 AM
|  To: Erik Nordmark
|  Cc: Tony Li; multi6@ops.ietf.org
|  Subject: Re: noid and applications (generic requirements 
|  from applications)
|  
|  
|  On 2003-11-13, at 08.49, Erik Nordmark wrote:
|  
|  >> Of course, if we're going to open an implementation, we might want
|  >> to make the point of referral the FQDN, not the locator(s).
|  >
|  > Yes. Especially with noid, where the multihomed node needs 
|  to have a 
|  > FQDN,
|  > this makes a lot of sense.
|  
|  This is ok for an application which of course should use the 
|  FQDN, but, 
|  even when using whatever "thing" the application uses to 
|  establish the 
|  connection (which it gets via the FQDN) that should be 
|  usable without 
|  knowledge of the network topology. I guess one can formulate 
|  it as it 
|  must have features like:
|  
|    (A=B) and (B=C) gives (A=C) where '=' is "can communicate with"
|  
|  and
|  
|    (A->B) gives (B->A) where '->' is "can send data to"
|  
|      paf
|  
|