re: [RRG] RE: Is the flat identifier acceptable

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Some other proposal does not need an
> > id-locator mapping infrastructure. However, it requires every host to
have
> a
> > FQDN name. In nature, the FQDN name plays the role of the identifier in
the
> > resolution infrastructure, on behave of the IDENTIFIER of the session.
This
> > way, two name entities together play the role of the identifier, with
each
> > one of them suitable for different context.
> 
> If you you change the IP address so it has -only- locator semantics,
> what makes you think a DNS A record -isn't- an id, and the DNS -isn't-
> an id-locator mapping infrastructure?

Hi Bill,

I agree with your points. But what I referred to in the above text is some
proposal like GSE/ILNP in which the IP address is split into locator and
identifier. Due to the lack of an independent id/locator mapping system, it
still depends on the DNS to resolve the map between id and locator. And so
it requires every host to have a FQDN name which, in nature, plays the role
of the identifier to some extent. 

Xiaohu XU



--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg