> Given this background, I don't see any immediate drawbacks > from the following approach to referral. When a host want > to send an end-point identifier to another host, it always > includes either a currently known working address for the > identifier, a name (e.g. DNS name) that can be easily > converted to an address, or both.
DNS names are not sufficient for rendezvous or referral. see http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/ipv6/dns-as-endpoint-id.html In a world where IP addresses change without notice, IP addresses aren't sufficient for rendezvous or referral either. While there might be reasons to have identifiers instead of locators other than the fact that IP address-to-host bindings are becoming ephemeral, the immediate problem is that we don't have good host identifiers that can be used for rendezvous or referral. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
