[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does every host need a FQDN name in the future?//re:[RRG] draft-rja-ilnp-intro-01.txt
On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:16 AM, Christian Vogt wrote:
......
As I mentioned during the RRG session in Dublin as well as in an
earlier post [1] to this mailing list, we should re-consider whether
there really is a need for another ID/locator split in addition to the
existing hostname/address split. I do not believe there is.
"the mind is like parachute, it works best when it is open" -- I
picked this up from a 8th grader.
it is natural that different people may see different pictures, it is
also beneficial to try to see the picture from different views.
it is very true that good use of DNS names can help solve many
problems, as reasoned below, however this is not equivalent to a
proof of node-ID being unnecessary. HIP is used today, maybe it is
beneficial to find out why people use HIP first.
We would
get all the benefits we are after if we re-used the existing
hostname/address split, and moved the splitting point from between the
application layer and the transport layer down to between the
transport layer and the IP layer.
When we get to the engineering stage, we would need to work out three
auxiliary methods:
(1) to generate synthetic hostnames for hosts without a real hostname
(2) to support legacy transport protocols
(3) to communicate hostnames to correspondent hosts
Synthesizing a hostname based on an address, as you are suggesting, is
IMHO a very reasonable solution for (1).
A simple and secure solution for (2) would be to hash an arbitrary-
length hostname into 128 bits and use this in legacy transport
protocols -- just like HIP is generating 128-bit HITs from
arbitrary-length keys.
A cool solution for (3) could be the combination of (i) an initial
explicit exchange of hostnames between peers, and (ii) Noel's proposal
to compute checksums based on identifiers (hostnames, in this case)
for subsequent packets.
- Christian
[1] http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg01912.html
--
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
--
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