<skiped> > Earlier, someone wrote: > > 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 > > host. > > Indeed there is an association: > A locally-unique ID is unique only within the context > of that node's locators. > > This could be paraphrased as saying: > "No more than 1 node may use a given ID value on a given > IP subnetwork at a given time." > > That constraint is true for existing IPv4, IPv6 (see IPv6 ND > for example), and hence isn't particularly new with ILNP. > As ILNPv6 recycles IPv6 ND without needing to change anything, > it is not surprising that the same IPv6 constraint remains.
My question is whether there is any association between I _records_ and L _records_ in the _DNS_. This is the key point of these arguments. Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
