> Keith,
>
> I did not argue the persistence of ALL DNS names.
>
> What I did argue is that if I was trying to tell someone how to reach a
> particular Internet based service I would write down something that had
> a DNS name in it, not something that contained an IP address. For me,
> that is
TBR IP addresses over time?" - cheers, peter)
-Original Message-
From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 8:25 PM
To: Peter Ford
Cc: Geoff Huston; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: utility of dynamic DNS
> I would offer that we select the "th
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > > There is another alternative way to solve this: an "assocation" layer
> > > above TCP that allows application/client-to-application/server
> > > communications to span a sequence of lifetimes of underlying transports.
> >
> > Been there, done tha
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Keith Moore wrote:
> > There is another alternative way to solve this: an "assocation" layer
> > above TCP that allows application/client-to-application/server
> > communications to span a sequence of lifetimes of underlying transports.
>
> Been there, done that. There are
> > 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
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
ent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:04 AM
To: Francis Dupont
Cc: Theodore Tso; Keith Moore; Pete Resnick; Randy Bush; Jakob Schlyter;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: utility of dynamic DNS
The essence of the architecture of mobility is to allow the identity of
the
mobile device to remain constant
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.
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
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:41:09PM -0800, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> Actually, we hope to get it to work without requiring X.509.
Heh. I agree with you, I threw in X.509 just to make the problem seem
much more intractable. :-)
I can think of making it the mobile IP problem more soluble, such
Theodore Tso wrote:
> With Mobile IP, the security model seems to be (in order to avoid
> triangle routing), that I need to a secure messages to arbitrary
> machines in the Internet, who then need to somehow magically know that
> I am the person authorized to redirect traffic for 216.175.175.175
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 02:02:51PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > A widely deployed dynamic DNS makes a good deal of service location protocol
> > unnecessary. Seems like a good thing to me.
>
> I don't have the slightest doubt that dynamic DNS is useful for some
> things, and I'm sorry that my e
> >It's also quite clear to me that stable DNS names are not an
> >adequate substitute for stable IP addresses , and that the existence
> >of a service that can be used to update DNS names when IP addresses
> >change should not be taken as an indication (for example) that it's
> >okay for provider
On 2/28/02 at 2:02 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
>It's also quite clear to me that stable DNS names are not an
>adequate substitute for stable IP addresses , and that the existence
>of a service that can be used to update DNS names when IP addresses
>change should not be taken as an indication
> i figured i would help, probably be the lynchee.
entertainment for the social event? nah, I never attend such things anyway.
I'm far more interested in fixing problems than finding people to blame.
it's just that you can't fix problems while people are still in denial
that the problems exist.
>> we eagerly look forward to you providing this technology, and maybe
>> even having an isp lynching or effigy burning at yokohama. or do we
>> need to be more patient?
> patience helps. one person can only do so much.
i figured i would help, probably be the lynchee.
randy
> we eagerly look forward to you providing this technology, and maybe
> even having an isp lynching or effigy burning at yokohama. or do we
> need to be more patient?
patience helps. one person can only do so much.
Keith
> It's also quite clear to me that stable DNS names are not an adequate
> substitute for stable IP addresses, and that the existence of a service
> that can be used to update DNS names when IP addresses change should not
> be taken as an indication (for example) that it's okay for providers to
> A widely deployed dynamic DNS makes a good deal of service location protocol
> unnecessary. Seems like a good thing to me.
I don't have the slightest doubt that dynamic DNS is useful for some
things, and I'm sorry that my earlier messages gave that impression.
It's quite clear to me that, wh
24 matches
Mail list logo
