On Sep 14, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
perhaps, but it won't work reliably as long as there can be more
than one host associated with a DNS name, nor will it work as long
as DNS name-to-address mapping is used to distribute load over a
set of hosts.
well, this presumes that the application wants to get to the same
instance of the peer, as opposed to getting to "an" instance of the
peer. If the reason the session was lost was that the peer has gone
out of service or is unreachable, insisting on the same instance of
the peer has its down sides.
So there is probably some solution, as you suggest, such as having
the application accept a peer-specific name for the purpose - if it
has to retry, it can try the instance-specific name first, and if
that fails, try the more general name.
Note that when I say "name", I am not limiting myself to a DNS name.
I'm quite happy to see some other form of name if the apps folks want
to design one, for all the reasons you cite. IMHO, some form of true
directory, with unicode directly supported, would be a wonderful
thing. I'm not the first to suggest that, as you know well. I'm
waiting for those who understand those issues better than I do to
make the proposal. Haven't seen it yet.
Have you ever used the term "layer violation", or heard it used by
someone else? Having the application know the network layer address
is just slightly worse than having it know what it's Ethernet address
is or what port it is attached to. There are a few cases in which it
has a real need to know. In all except those few, believe me, every
whine I hear about renumbering is in my ears a whine about the layer
violation. Make it go away, and the renumbering problem will be
*much* easier to solve.
Ietf mailing list