> We now have FQDNs that identify services or hosts, and we have IP > addresses, that identify hosts or routing+interface. In order to > decrease the ambiguity to managable levels, we need to move the FQDNs > and especially IP addresses away from identifying hosts, and introduce > and explicit host or "stack name" identifier. Host identifiers should > look like IPv6 (maybe optionally IPv4) addresses, in order to be able > to keep using our current protocols that expect 16/4 bit values. (And > there isn't much of substance to be gained by giving them a different > shape.) mostly agree, except that I suspect it works better to put the new layer between IP and transport than to insert a layer underneath IP. part of this assumption is that the new layer can still be nil for hosts whose location is fixed and that do not need unreasonably stable addresses. > Where necessary, FQDNs can be replaced by application specific > namespaces with a system to map those names to host identifiers to go > along with such a new space. I don't see a need to change FQDNs themselves - but the meanings of the IP addresses that they map to will change slightly. > The hard part is coming up with a way to > do the host/location mapping in a way that is simple, fast, cheap, > secure, flexible and reliable. yup. that, and making the transition work smoothly. Keith