hostnames

Giving a hostname to your computer and publishing it as you roam from one network to another is the Internet's equivalent of walking around with a name tag affixed to your lapel. This current practice can significantly compromise your privacy, and something should change in order to mitigate these privacy threats.

There are several possible remedies, such as fixing a variety of protocols or avoiding disclosing a hostname at all. This document describes some of the protocols that reveal hostnames today and sketches another possible remedy, which is to replace static hostnames by frequently changing randomized values.

Identifiers such as hostnames, URIs, IP addresses, and email addresses are often used in security contexts to identify security principals and resources. In such contexts, an identifier presented via some protocol is often compared using some policy to make security decisions such as whether the security principal may access the resource, what level of authentication or encryption is required, etc. If the parties involved in a security decision use different algorithms to compare identifiers, then failure scenarios ranging from denial of service to elevation of privilege can result. This document provides a discussion of these issues that designers should consider when defining identifiers and protocols, and when constructing architectures that use multiple protocols.

This document defines a new OSPF Router Information (RI) TLV that allows OSPF routers to flood their hostname-to-Router-ID mapping information across an OSPF network to provide a simple and dynamic mechanism for routers running OSPF to learn about symbolic hostnames, just like for routers running IS-IS. This mechanism is applicable to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

In some Mobile IPv4 deployments, identifying the mobile node or the mobility service subscriber is not enough to distinguish among the multiple services possibly provisioned to the mobile node. The capability to specify different services in addition to the mobile node's identity can be leveraged to provide flexibility for mobility service providers to provide multiple services within a single mobility service subscription. This document describes a Service Selection extension for Mobile IPv4 that is intended to assist home agents to make specific service selections for their mobility service subscriptions during the registration procedure. This memo provides information for the Internet community.

RFC 2763 defined a simple and dynamic mechanism for routers running IS-IS to learn about symbolic hostnames. RFC 2763 defined a new TLV that allows the IS-IS routers to flood their name-to-systemID mapping information across the IS-IS network.

This document obsoletes RFC 2763. This document moves the capability provided by RFC 2763 to the Standards Track. [STANDARDS-TRACK]

This RFC consolidates information necessary for the implementation of domain style names throughout the DDN/MILNET Internet community. The introduction of domain style names will impact all hosts in the DDN/MILNET Internet. This RFC is designed as an aid to implementors and administrators by providing: 1) an overview of the transition process from host tables to domains, 2) a timetable for the transition, and 3) references to documentation and software relating to the domain system.

This RFC is the official specification of the format of the Internet Host Table. This edition of the specification includes minor revisions to RFC-810 which brings it up to date.

This RFC actually is a request for comments. The issue dealt with is that of a naming registry update procedure, both as exists currently and what could exist in the future. None of the proposed solutions are intended as standards at this time; rather it is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as the appropriate solution, leaving eventually to the adoption of standards.

In conjunction with moving NIC users to OFFICE-1; see also RFCs 621 and 609.

See also RFCs 606, 608, 623 and 627.

See also RFCs 606, 608, 623 and 625.

See also RFCs 627, 625, 608 and 606.

Resolving differences in hostname-address mappings; see also RFCs 627, 625, 623 and 608.