On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Jul 11, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Chris Behrens wrote: > >>> It's a shame that the ipv6 proposal was never more fully considered. >>> That would handle the uniqueness, with the added benefit of providing >>> simple zone routing via DNS, with the exact same 128-bit/32 char size. >> >> I don't I remember that proposal, but that's such a neat idea. Was anything >> discussed at all in Santa Clara regarding encoding zone information in the >> instance identifier? I apparently missed the instance identifier discussion >> somehow. > > > At the end of the instance referencing discussion, Van Lindbergh > brought up the idea. We discussed it with several people both in the > conference room and over lunch. I believe that the main objections were that > not everyone would have an IPv6 creation scheme, whereas UUID generators are > ubiquitous. The other was a vague concern
Ya, I was guessing that would be a concern. Doesn't seem like a huge deal, since everyone should be moving towards ipv6 only anyway. I could see some objections raised if you didn't want any sort of public network interface at all... but you could still assign an unused address. > about "revealing internal structure", but since the information "revealed" > would be the exact same info in the instance's public network info, it didn't > strike me as a serious concern. Right. As long as there is a public network interface, people are going to be able to figure out at least some part of 'internal structure'. - Chris This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, please delete it. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
