Re: [RRG] 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 2008-08-12 07:58, Scott Brim wrote:
...
> On 8/10/08 7:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
>> No ;-) needed, I think. An identifier needs to be unique for as long as
>> it needs to be unique for. If we stipulate that no transport connection
>> has a lifetime greater than T, then the transport ID only needs
>> to be unique for T+epsilon. 
> 
> Except that sessions overlap, so if it's a system-wide identifier it has
> to persist until the next reboot (because new sessions will keep picking
> it up and using it before previous sessions are done with it).  If it's
> only a session-level identifier it can be more evanescent.  This would
> make the multipath design more interesting.

That's why I specifically said "transport ID". Not host ID. Our thinking
has been somewhat constrained by the TCP/IP assumptions that
transport ID = network ID + port number, and that network ID = host ID
= host locator.

    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