Christian Vogt - le (m/j/a) 12/4/08 10:26 AM:
In any case, your comment is useful input, as it shows that calling the
proposed stack architecture in  "hostname-oriented" may be wrong.
Calling it "service-name-oriented" -- or simply "name-oriented" -- may
be more appropriate. Thanks for the input.
Full support for the idea of a *name-oriented architecture*.
In it, the locator-identifier separation principle applies naturally:
names are the identifiers; addresses, or addresses plus ports, are the
Address plus port locators are tneeded to reach applications in hosts
that have to share their IPv4 address with other hosts ( e.g. behind a
NAT with configured port-forwarding.)
*Service-names* are the existing tool to advertise address plus port
locators, and and to permit efficient multihoming because, in *SRV
records* which are returned by the DNS to service-name queries:
- several locators can be received for one name, possibly with a mix
of IPv4 and IPv6
- locators can include port numbers
- priority and weight parameters of locators provide for backup and load
IMO, service names and SRV records SHOULD be supported asap in all
resolvers (in addition to host names and A/AAAA records that they
Any view on this?
Ietf mailing list