# Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

Jon P. Knight (J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk)
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:49:56 +0000 (GMT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Keith Ball: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"
- Previous message: IESG Secretary: "Document Action: Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource"
- In reply to: Paul Rarey: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services"

    Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:49:56 +0000 (GMT)

    From: "Jon P. Knight" <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>

    Subject: Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services

    To: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@systems.dhl.com>

    In-Reply-To: <9502010927.ZM17455@maverick.systems.DHL.COM>

    Message-Id: <Pine.3.05.9502011836.L29226-b100000@suna>

On Wed, 1 Feb 1995, Paul Rarey wrote:

> On Feb 1, 5:21, Jon P. Knight wrote:
> Although I haven't digested the IPng papers, I believe it is a safe
> bet that application(s - or application protocols such as hppt, smtp etc.) will
> not have to change in their use of TCP in order for IPng to be the encapsulating
> network layer protocol).

Erm, I'm not so sure. I haven't tracked the development of IP:ng recently
but at least at one point on the big-internet mailing list there was talk
of having to re-write or at least recompile applications to make use of
IP:ng natively. Don't forget that on UNIX boxes running BSD-derived code,
there isn't a nice, clean, ``please open me a TCP connection to
wibbly.wobbly.com''. You have to get your hands dirty with sockets using
SOCK_STREAM or SOCK_DGRAM and that means that your code is littered with
structures that have IP addresses in them. Maybe someone with
their finger on the IP:ng pulse will say yea or nay on this?

I would have thought that most of the on-the-wire protocols will be ok
though. The only problems I can think of are if there are any protocols
that specifically leave a space for an IPv4 (or IPX or whatever) address
in their on-the-wire representations.

My point was that if you will have to rewrite your code come IP:ng change
over time (ie: tomorrow :-) ), you might as well do the decent thing and
utilise a single namespace and resolution mechanism for your machines. Why
would you need more than one? Maybe I'm missing something obvious here...

Jon

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon Knight, Research Student in High Performance Networking and Distributed
Systems in the Department of _Computer_Studies_ at Loughborough University.
* It's not how big your share is, its how much you share that's important *

- Next message: Keith Ball: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming"
- Previous message: IESG Secretary: "Document Action: Functional Recommendations for Internet Resource"
- In reply to: Paul Rarey: "Re: HTTP URL to support multiple naming services"