Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-08-06 04:57, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |> It would seem like it would be no different than today.  If 
> |one had a host
> |> without a FQDN, then you would need to refer to it using a 
> |full 128 bit
> |> locator and identifier.
> |
> |Provided there are some hosts without FQDNs, does that mean we need a
> |separate id/locator resolution infrastructure except the 
> |current DNS system?
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Such systems would be reachable via their explicit /128, just
> like today.  This is just pure legacy IPv6 functionality.

<obscenity>

You can always fabricate a synthetic FQDN-like name for such an
address, if a new FQDN-based API requires it. Mine right now could be
200282d8267c00000000000082d8267c.map6.arpa for example.

</obscenity>

   Brian


--
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