On Aug 1, 2008, at 4:35 AM, xuxiaohu 41208 wrote:
Reading the ILNP intro draft, I was already trying to remember the locations/identities [*] of the most damning evaluations of GSE/8+8 when this caught my eye: Identifiers are unique within the context of a given Locator; in many cases, Identifiers might happen to be globally unique, but that is not a functional requirement for this proposal. This means that it won't be possible to learn the locators for a given identifier through a lookup mechanism. So ILNP has many of the same limitations of shim6: at least one working (!) locator must be present in the DNS (or other address discovery mechanism). Because of this and the use of dynamic DNS, basically, the FQDN is the real identifier while the "I" is only a fixed-size handle that conveniently fits in existing fields.I also believe so. then my question is Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?Xiaohu XU
Looks like this question by Xiaohu has triggered a number of exchanges in the last few days. As a side observer, it seems to me there is a fair amount of "cross talk", perhaps partly due to unclear context.
First, the above discussion refers to ILNP-enabled hosts, and I would expect that ILNP-enabled hosts do have a FQDN name (so the question itself seems an unnecessary generalization).
Second, the above question came from the discussion of draft-rja-ilnp- intro-01.txt, yet Xiaohu's last msg asked
I'm confused by what you said. In Noel's Endpoint Name draft, the first requirement for the host identifier is global uniqueness. Is that wrong?As I read it, Tony's comment referred to ILNP draft, yet the above question seems forgotten where it was originated.
Lixia -- 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