On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Marc Blanchet wrote: > > True. But many DHCP's are much more longer-lived than that. > > Actually, if your address is changing hourly, you probably won't > > bother to go register (manually, through webbrowser!) the reverse > > mapping every time it changes. > > sorry don't agree. > - not only no user will ever change their reverse mapping (they don't know > what that mean anyway) > - but does not scale well: think of millions of users updating frequently.
Well, that's how I read the draft -- the user changes it manually. This would be a feature -- only those who "need" it will need to care. Those who don't care, don't update -- and resources are saved! Of course, the vendor could provide a script/frontend, which could do the update. This is scalable, I think, especially if it's not automated. If it gets automated, then it's time for rate-limiting (mentioned in the previous message). > > (Some DHCP addresses/provides provide quite stable addresses. My home > > address stayed stable for over a year -- I haven't even bothered to > > get a static one. But there are probably operators who intentionally > > keep the leases short.) > > an architecture of operations should not be based on some "current" > practice of some operators, if in case of this practice changes, the > scalability won't work anymore. So? This is just a description of system to be used by RIRs, or even delegated downstream in some cases to LIRs. If the user behaviours change, the safeguards can be added. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings . dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________ web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
