Tony Hain wrote: > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I believe that you have misunderstood my point... I'll try > > to explain further, although our friends in the applications > > area may be able to give better examples. > > > > Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If > > another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a > > multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants > > to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do? > > Send a name.
Not all addresses are published in DNS. DNS isn't a requirement for IP either. > > If this is IPv6 with site-local addressing, NodeA may be > > speaking to the FooBar server using a site-local address. > > What happens if NodeA sends that site local address to NodeB? > > Any app that sends topology locator information without understanding > the topology is broken. <SNIP> Thus RFC959 is broken? There goes my favourite transfer proto :) And there are enough applications that are broken then. Actually all the applications that need special processing when traversing a NAT as those apps If those apps didn't pass an IP(/port) combo inside then they wouldn't need special treatment by the NAT either. We are actually getting to: Use a unique identifier that is topology independent. Wasn't that where IP Addresses where meant for? A unique address independent of topology... Greets, Jeroen
