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 [1] "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
locators.
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
sharing control.
IMO, service names and SRV records SHOULD be supported asap in all
resolvers (in addition to host names and A/AAAA records that they
support today).
Any view on this?
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf