Tony Hain wrote:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I believe that you have misunderstood my point... I'll try
to explain further, although our friends in the applications
area may be able to give better examples.
Let's assume that there is a FooBar server in SiteA. If
another node in SiteA (NodeA) is communicating via a
multi-party application to a node in SiteB (NodeB), and wants
to refer NodeB to the FooBar server in SiteA, what does it do?
Send a name.
Not all addresses are published in DNS.
DNS isn't a requirement for IP either.
If this is IPv6 with site-local addressing, NodeA may be
speaking to the FooBar server using a site-local address.
What happens if NodeA sends that site local address to NodeB?
Any app that sends topology locator information without understanding
the topology is broken.
<SNIP>
Thus RFC959 is broken? There goes my favourite transfer proto :)
And there are enough applications that are broken then.
Actually all the applications that need special processing
when traversing a NAT as those apps
If those apps didn't pass an IP(/port) combo inside then
they wouldn't need special treatment by the NAT either.
We are actually getting to:
Use a unique identifier that is topology independent.
Wasn't that where IP Addresses where meant for? A unique
address independent of topology...
Greets,
Jeroen