Keith,
Operationally, the DNS shouldn't be hard. Common implementations
(unaugmented BIND, in particular) make it so. If you don't think so, look
at the results of the Men&Mice Domain Health survey
(http://www.menandmice.com/6000/6000_domain_health.html)
Implementation wise, the DNS _is_ hard,
> This whole thread on dynamic DNS exposes the techno-geek mindset that
> 'we know DNS is hard, because it always has been', and the applications
> we use don't really make sense in a DDNS system.
no that's not it at all. DNS isn't especially hard, it just doesn't
happen to solve either the mob
> > Try this one: while in your hotel room, you see there's something you need
> > to download. By the time you get dressed, it's still coming down; and you
> > have to go to a meeting. If you're using Mobile IP, you may be able to
> > move from one network to another before the TCP connectio
> I would offer that we select the "thing" that looks the most persistent
> to be the persistent identity.
Actually, you want to select the identity that's appropriate for your
purpose. DNS is not inherently better than IP for all purposes.
DNS names are often failure-prone, slow to lookup, a
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> suggested a URL about dynamic relocation and the
DNS at:
http://ops.ietf.org/dns/dynupd/secure-ddns-howto.html
Its very interesting and a bit over my head, perhaps. Maybe its a <>"friday"
document!
"Why Dynamic Update?
Dynamic update proposes to provide a workable
Dan Kolis wrote:
> Well, this makes me feel better and there is certainly a lot of good
> thinking in the above. I wonder, though since I know almost
> nothing about
> IPNG whether maybe its handled there better.
DNS is orthogonal to IPv6, but absolutely required to avoid having to
type addresses
Tony Hain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Mobility is not the only reason to use DDNS. Consider the case of Dan's
>residential gateway. If it provided a consumer-friendly automated DDNS
>server for a sub-domain delegated to the residence, what are the hard
>issues? First would be security, but that i
it's really nice to see the NSRG and MIP folk working their issues in this
more public space. it's a whole lot better than some pathetic idiot flaming
about his drivel being filtered, and the hundreds of folk who feel a need to
reply.
but, just to remind folk, if you want to try the dynamic dns
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, John Stracke wrote:
> Try this one: while in your hotel room, you see there's something you need
> to download. By the time you get dressed, it's still coming down; and you
> have to go to a meeting. If you're using Mobile IP, you may be able to
> move from one network to
>P.S. I can think of some partial answers; for example, if there is
>high-speed internet access in my hotel, and assuming it is reasonably
>priced, I might want to use it in the morning before I go down to the
>terminal room.
[...]
>But wait a moment; if the laptop is frequently appearing and
>di
This whole thread on dynamic DNS exposes the techno-geek mindset that
'we know DNS is hard, because it always has been', and the applications
we use don't really make sense in a DDNS system. Get over it... The only
reason DNS is hard is the defacto implementation makes it that way. The
cynics migh
I would offer that we select the "thing" that looks the most persistent
to be the persistent identity. If the choices are: DNS name vs IP
address, I think most people would recognize that the DNS name is the
persistent identity. And it is probably the one most people would want
to use, especi
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 09:03:46PM +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
> Obviously, as already pointed out, the restriction here is that the device
> cannot support persistent state across location changes, but worse, as far
> as I can tell, is that it is an approach that has poor scaling properties.
I'll have you know one thing buddy!
No one tells me to have fun while masturbating!
So there! :-)
I'm late, but I just wanted to get mine in.
~ Clarke ~
- Original Message -
From: Simmons Jay L MSgt 90IOS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Tim DiLauro' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Good call Timeveryone please???!!
-Original Message-
From: Tim DiLauro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: y'all crack me up
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Paul Robinson wrote:
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Paul Robinson wrote:
Okay!
Is everyone on the list going to do one of these, or can we stop
already!?
-timmo
> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:36:18 +
> From: Paul Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Michael Allen Gelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
On Feb 28, Michael Allen Gelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IETF did the same thing old Vernon did -- publicly post a private
> email. You *know* what is wrong with that. Out the other sides of your
> asses you tell people about "Netiquette," don't you. Dweebs!
It's a mailing list. It's fo
IP is encapsulated in PPP for all practical purposes. PPP can support
multiple protocols on a single point to point link in the same way
ethernet can support multiple protocols
vint
At 08:01 AM 3/1/2002 -0500, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>Is IP actually encapsulated in PPP, or is PPP and IP sent out a
Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The essence of the architecture of mobility is to allow the identity of the
>mobile device to remain constant while allowing the identity of the
>location of the device within the network to vary. The dynamic DNS
>approach attempts to bind the domain nam
Is IP actually encapsulated in PPP, or is PPP and IP sent out at the same
time at different protocol layers? Kinda holding hands in a sense to each
other.
- Original Message -
From: "vint cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Christopher Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Cunningham"
<[EMAIL PROTE
The essence of the architecture of mobility is to allow the identity of the
mobile device to remain constant while allowing the identity of the
location of the device within the network to vary. The dynamic DNS
approach attempts to bind the domain name as the device's persistent
identity and
In your previous mail you wrote:
Perhaps. Certainly stable IP address is preferable to being
constantly and needlessly renumbered all the time (although if the
practice became more prevelant, the silver lining is that it would
likely put an end to that abomination known as IP-addres
woof, woof!looks like the old fidonet days.
At 06:04 PM 2/28/02 -0500, Julia Finnegan wrote:
>Wooo hooo! Finally some action in this place... Right on.
>
>*Julia*
>
> -Original Message-
>From: Michael Allen Gelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 3:13
23 matches
Mail list logo
