DNS based routing versus IPADD routing... this is interesting. "you are gonna have to give me some grace on this as it has been a while .......... but "
Since we know that currently DNS resolution is already employed globaly (to make things easier for the world community) and that rides on top of the IPADD routing that supports the routing structures (EBGP) then are we really talking about realigning and modifying the OSI model altogether? this reminds me of a question I use to ask engineers when I would be interviewing them for a job... one topic I would cover is the "Well known port numbers" i.e. ftp, snmp, dns, dhcp, pop3, etc.. so they would get on a roll and feel good that they were nailing these answers. then I would throw them off by asking: "What is the well known port number for Frame Relay?" Obviously this was a trick question just to catch them off guard and to see how well they knew the OSI model. More often than not they would get frustrated and be convinced that F/R does have a port number. But what if the layer 2 technologies did have port numbers? what would be next? to get back to the topic...... i would not want to contemplate the tought of the impact it would have globaly on the networking foundation of companies and the internet altogether if it were traveresed to a DNS based routing technique; it would be too much to imagine. (it would put a lot of people out of work..... ;) two last questions: 1. MPLS vs. BGPv4? 2. what is the lowest cisco routing platform you would suggest for a dual homed bgp network? (i know what i will and won't suggest to customers irregardless of what anyone says, but just curious what your viepoint is, for example some people setup a 2651 to perform this task - yeah o.k. - better get ready to use that thing for a doorstop!!) Cheers! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59541&t=59532 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
