> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Xu Xiaohu > 发送时间: 2010年2月3日 9:14 > 收件人: 'Tony Li'; [email protected] > 主题: Re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host idenfieirs//re: A > concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > 发件人: Xu Xiaohu [mailto:[email protected]] > > 发送时间: 2010年2月2日 17:02 > > 收件人: 'Tony Li'; '[email protected]' > > 主题: re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host idenfieirs//re: > A > > concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > > > > > > -----邮件原件----- > > > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Tony Li > > > 发送时间: 2010年2月2日 14:24 > > > 收件人: [email protected] > > > 主题: Re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host > idenfieirs//re: > > A > > > concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > That's an interesting interpretation. > > > > > > ILNP uses an explicit numeric token as the identifier. The FQDN is not > > > the identifier. The identifier can be found in the I record. > > > > > > On a forward reference, a FQDN is resolved into an I record and one or > > > more L records. In the case of a service name, it is not unreasonable > > > for DNS to return multiple I records, each with an associated set of L > > > records. This is not explicitly called out in the current ILNP > > > documentation, but is a reasonable extrapolation from current usage, > > > plus the existing documents. > > > > Interesting, is there any association between the I record and the L > record? > > By the way, as stated in the ILNP draft, "...the Locally unique Identifiers > are unique within the context of their associated Locators...". Therefore, > there SHOULD be some association between I records and L records of a given
Otherwise, using mismatched L and I pair will cause a packet intended for host A (e.g., a multi-homed host with two L+I pairs, Lx+Ix, Ly+Iy) to be forwarded mistakenly to host B (Lx+Iy). Note that the I records mentioned here are filled with Locally unique Identifiers. Xiaohu > host. Unfortunately, there seems NO such association in the current ILNP > specification. > > Xiaohu > > > Best wishes, > > Xiaohu > > > > > Regards, > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > rrg mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
