Steve, > I think the point Charlie was making is that IP addresses are precisely > the kinds of nails that the DNS was designed to hammer. And I agree. > Are you > claiming that because the DNS has been used to pound other things, > it is no longer any good for hammering (IP address) nails? Not at all. The DNS is (still) a wonderful system for translating IP addresses to names and vice versa. I'm a bit skeptical that the other things the DNS has been pressed into action to do is optimal, but I also see the "nail-ness" of many problems. My point was that suggesting that reliance should not be placed on the DNS has been, is, and most likely will be contrary to what happens in the real world. Rgds, -drc
- Re: To address or NAT to... Bill Fink
- Re: To address or NAT to... David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to... Peter Deutsch
- Re: To address or NAT to... Dave Crocker
- Re: To address or NAT to... Peter Deutsch
- Re: To address or NAT to... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: To address or NAT to... RL 'Bob' Morgan
- Re: To address or NAT to... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: To address or NAT to... Steve Deering
- Re: To address or NAT to... Randy Bush
- Re: To address or NAT to... David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to... Bill Manning
- Re: To address or NAT to add... Steve Deering
- DNS performance (Re: To address or NAT to... Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: DNS performance (Re: To address o... Christian Huitema
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Jeffrey Altman
- Re: To address or NAT to address? David R. Conrad
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Pyda Srisuresh
- RE: To address or NAT to address? Dan Kohn
- Re: To address or NAT to address? Keith Moore
- RE: To address or NAT to address? Harald Tveit Alvestrand