Hi all, In the current Internet, an ICP (e.g., google) could scatter a set of servers sharing the same FQDN (e.g., www.google.com ) worldwide or nationwide to provide load-balancing services in an anycast-like way. For example, if a client performs a DNS query for the A or AAAA records of ” www.google.com”, the DNS server could return the address of a server which is one of the nearest servers to the client, in the DNS response. Of course, the DNS server could also return all available A or AAAA records, then the client will choose one according to some policy. In this case, the FQDN plays a role of service ID, rather than host ID.
If I understood ILNP correctly, each ILNP host needs a globally unique FQDN. That’s to say, the FQDN can not be used as a service ID to represent a set of ILNP servers which are scattered in the Internet. As a result, the above load-balancing service through DNS is not available anymore in the ILNP architecture. Maybe another indirection from one FQDN (representing a Service ID) to another one (representing a Host ID) should be developed in order to support the above service. Xiaohu > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:x...@huawei.com] > 发送时间: 2010年1月28日 16:51 > 收件人: 'Tony Li' > 抄送: 'RRG' > 主题: re: [rrg] A concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony...@tony.li] > > 发送时间: 2010年1月28日 16:15 > > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu > > 抄送: 'RRG' > > 主题: Re: [rrg] A concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > Xu Xiaohu wrote: > > > > > OK, I got it. My point is the above scenario should be considered in a non- > > > clean-slate architecture. > > > > > > Not necessarily. Some folks don't feel that it's necessary (or > > beneficial) to warp the architecture around the legacy host. Things do > > change. We no longer need to be concerned with our IMP number, for > > example. ;-) > > How many people used IMP, and how many people use current Internet? The > difference in scale may cause us to make totally different choices. ;) > > Xiaohu > > > Yes, we could have a band-aid architecture. But then we have to live > > with those band-aids. Forever. No thank you. > > > > > > > Then each ILNP+ host should be assigned a globally unique home address just > > > for communication with legacy hosts ;) > > > > > > There's no such thing as ILNP+. If someone wants to use an ILNP host > > with Mobile IP to interact with legacy hosts, then yes, it will need to > > act like a legacy host and have a home address. > > > > > > > Not better, but worse in some cases (e.g., the above scenario), IMHO. > > > > > > You haven't shown that. All you've done is to restate that legacy hosts > > can't take advantage of ILNP. This was stipulated up front. Asked and > > answered. Let's move on. > > > > Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
