Hi Tony, > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:tony...@tony.li] > 发送时间: 2010年2月4日 1:31 > 收件人: Xu Xiaohu; rrg@irtf.org > 主题: Re: [rrg] Another concern about using FQDNs as host idenfieirs//re: A > concern with ILNP//re: critique of RANGI > > > Hi Xiaohu, > > > 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. > > There's more misunderstanding here. > > A multihomed host has only one identifier.
It seems that Ran doesn't agree to your point :). Please see Ran's response to your opinion in another discussion thread " Sundry ILNP confusions...": ************************************************ Much earlier, Tony Li wrote: > 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. Yes, with one edit: ...into one or more I records and one or more L records... One does not expect a node to be using multiple IDs in the common case, but it is permitted -- for example to enable folks who wish to use "privacy" (sic) Identifiers generated (as per RFC-4941) or use cryptographically-generated Identifiers (as per RFC-3972). ************************************************ > The problem comes about, as > you've previously observed, when a FQDN resolves to multiple hosts. I guess you wanted to say "... when a FQDN resolves to multiple _I records_ (no matter whether they belong to a single host or not)". But your above statement seems also right since your assumption is a host has only one I record. Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg