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 14:03, Xu Xiaohu 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.
> 
> Hi Brian
> 
> This idea is workable as ENUM. However, I wonder who will manage those
> mapping entries?

They don't need managing; they aren't really in the DNS, but are purely
synthetic. (Which means they can't be validated with DNSSEC and there
will be no reverse DNS.) But a resolver could be faked to "resolve"
them into a AAAA reply.

It's a horrible idea ;-)

   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