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

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> > |> 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.

Hi Brian

This idea is workable as ENUM. However, I wonder who will manage those
mapping entries?

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