Hi Tony,
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Tony Li [mailto:[email protected]]
> 发送时间: 2010年2月4日 1:31
> 收件人: Xu Xiaohu; [email protected]
> 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
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
