RE: Persistent or opportunistic IDs

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> It is probably possible to combine this with other ideas such a NOID
> (i.e. the server having a NOID-type identifier);
> a question is whether we want clients in multihomed sites
> where the client either doesn't have a DNS entry or it can't control
> its DNS entry, to benefit from the multihoming of the client's site.

Interesting approach indeed.
This would also save us the need to perform the reverse+forward DNS lookup
by the taget nodes, which would reduce the latency imposed by noid, since ,
the client (initiating host) will discover the multiple addresses of the
server using DNS as in noid, but the server will discover the multiple
addresses of the client using WIMP

>
> Overall there seem to be some "cost" associated with both having
> a non-emphemeral identifier and security.

Yes, the cost is aosociated with the fact that if you have a non ephemeral
id you need to defend it, i guess

> In the case of NOID
> this "cost" is the need to control your DNS entries.

I guess is more than that, it implies the additional round trips to get the
information from the central data base (DNS).

An interesting point of the WIMP noid combination that you suggest is that
you provide just what each end point needs i.e. if it is working as a
server, it gets a mechanisms to be reached and discovered, the RR asociated
with noid. If it is client, it gets an ephemeral identifier, which cannot be
used to initiate contact. In the case pf p2p, i guess that it will be
required to fall back to full noid.

Regards, marcelo

>
>    Erik
>
>