ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

2003-03-28 19:04:16
John C Klensin wrote:
... but I am unconvinced that we should make special 
architectural provisions to make it easier to be in the ISP 
business while being clueless.

Isn't that just what we did with MPLS??  ;)
or does that just prove your point?  ;))

My arguments are more about acknowledging the reality and requirements
of the deployed architecture than they are about creating a special
case. Routing filters do and will exist, ergo local scope addresses will
exist. Applications will have to deal with that, yet there is no hint
unless we provide a well-known flag. I agree that applications should
not have to understand topology, but when they insist on passing around
topology information they have bought into the need to understand what
they are doing. DNS is one of the protocols that deals in topology
information, so it needs to understand topology. We need to make it
robust enough that applications can rely on it so they will simply pass
around names. 

In writing that it occurs to me that one of our failings is that we have
allowed a component of the system to have a very unrealistic (archaic)
view of what the network is. The DNS system is designed for the network
of 1985, and we blindly continue to use it as the database for locator
information in a very different network. I understand the IAB has
recently cleared its backlog of issues, so maybe this is a ripe topic
for them to address ...

Tony 




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>