[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Well, I can't claim to be Noel, but I'll assert the following:
From an _engineering_ viewpoint, the hostname is not easy
to manipulate as an identifier. It is variable length and
we've decided on a fixed length field in our headers. If it
is of any length at all, it's likely to be longer than a
numeric identifier would be and in that sense is inefficient.
However, a numeric identifier of sufficient and fixed length
that had a 1:1 mapping with hostnames would work perfectly.
| On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
| > I do remain completely convinced that we *do* need to
| separate host
| > identification from routing-names, but my enthusiasm
| comes from a broad
| > architectural perspective, not a particular case (such
| as multi-homing).
| > And I will further add that I think those two functions
| are best served by
| > separate namespaces (i.e. different syntax and semantics).
| As our acting architectural conscience, what is your opinion on the
| principal of making the full hostname the identifier?
| I think if we develop this further we'll end up with stuff
| that pretty
| much does all the multi-address tricks we've been
| discussing here the
| last weeks, but it should all be much cleaner, except for the places
| where backward compatibility is especially difficult.
- Re: GSE
- From: Alan Barrett <email@example.com>
- Re: GSE
- From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>