We did discuss using IPV6 addresses as IDs months ago (IRC and email), but I don't remember why we decided not to. It may have been due to current adoption. I think it was pvo who originally had the idea.
-Eric On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 07:24:39PM +0000, Chris Behrens wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Eric Day wrote: > > > >>> How is > >>> > >>> nova-<account>-<instance uuid> > >>> > >>> any different than: > >>> > >>> AAAABBBB-CCCC-DDDD-EEEE-FFFFGGGGHHHH > >>> > >>> Where AAAA/BBBB/CCCC (or some subset of them) are reserved/regulated? > >> > >> Nothing, if DDDD-EEEE-FFFFGGGGHHHH is a full UUID. If we compare to > >> swift, the account prefix is a UUID too. The account prefix could be > >> fixed for a session or passed in to every request depending on how > >> things are decided. > > > > <sigh> > > > > It's a shame that the ipv6 proposal was never more fully considered. > > That would handle the uniqueness, with the added benefit of providing > > simple zone routing via DNS, with the exact same 128-bit/32 char size. > > I don't I remember that proposal, but that's such a neat idea. Was anything > discussed at all in Santa Clara regarding encoding zone information in the > instance identifier? I apparently missed the instance identifier discussion > somehow. > > - Chris > > > This email may include confidential information. If you received it in error, > please delete it. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
