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

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: owner-rrg@psg.com [mailto:owner-rrg@psg.com] 代表 Tony Li
> 发送时间: 2008年8月6日 0:57
> 收件人: 'Xu Xiaohu'; 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'
> 抄送: 'rrg Group'
> 主题: RE: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG]
> draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> |> 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.

Hi Tony,

Taking the mobility and multi-homing into account, do you still believe it
is workable?

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