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

[Xu Xiaohu <xuxh@huawei.com>]

> |Taking the mobility and multi-homing into account, do you
> |still believe it
> |is workable?
> 
> 
> I haven't seen a reason why it wouldn't be.

Once the 128 bit address is split into locator and identifier and the
locator will change according to the current network location, how could you
know the locator part before doing some resolution in the id/locator mapping
system (assume no such system) or DNS system (since this host has no FQDN
name)? 

Xiaohu XU

> |> 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.




--
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