Brian,
BEC> The reasons why FQDNs are imperfect EIDs have been listed quite recently
BEC> (on one of the IPV6 lists I think).
As a proponent of using domain names as endpoint identifiers -- for those
situations requiring only occasional exchanges -- I have put some effort
into looking for the discussions that argue against their use.
My goal is, of course, to then try to refute the arguments. If I can't
find convincing counter-arguments, I'll change my advocacy.
So far, I have not found arguments that are pragmatic and operational.
The arguments against domain names have primarily been based on
principles and aesthetics. These are important for guidance, but should
not get in the way of pragmatics. New namespaces are expensive,
particularly when they need global administration.
What I am looking for are arguments that explain how use of domain names
as EIDs "will not work" or arguments that explain how use of them will
break other things.
I've even tried to ask such questions in a few venues. Sadly, responses
that attend to pragmatics have not been forthcoming.
So, if there is a discussion that really explains the pragmatic problems
with using domain names, I would greatly appreciate being pointed at it.
Failing that, I'm afraid that, yes, this list should discuss the
question.
Let me prime the pump:
1. Concern: Domain names are overloaded; they get used for too many things
already.
Response: So? What problems are caused by this and how does it prevent
them from being used as EIDs? How will using them as EIDs -- and we can
skip over the argument that they already _are_ EIDs, for the moment --
break any of the other uses for domain names?
2. Concern: DNS administration is difficult
Response: But it exists and it works. Persistent names need
administration. Why is something new going to be easier? What can't the
mechanisms that make it easier be applied to the DNS? Why won't adding
them to DNS be substantially easier than creating a new, global
administrative mechanism?
3. Concern: Domain names are inefficient to use
Response: If they must be used in every packet, that is true. If they
must be used only occasionally, such as at the start of an association
or at major state change events, then the bit-inefficiency of domain
names is irrelevant to the overall efficiency of the service that is
using it.
4. Concern: Domain names are administered by a different entity than the
folks who administer IP operations
Response: Is this a turf war? Is there some reason to believe that
having the new namespace administered by another group is somehow going
to make the new names trivial to administer, compared with domain names?
The mere fact that the new namespace _might_ be administered by a
different group does not guarantee that the reality of administering it
is any better than the reality of administering domain names.
5. Concern: Not all machines have domain names.
Response: _No_ machines have whatever the alternative might be.
And so on.
OK. Consider the pump primed.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
_______________________________________________
Saad mailing list
Saad@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saad
