On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > At 14:23 25/03/04, Pekka Savola wrote: > >OK; I tried to fuel the thinking a bit: > > > > <t>A problem with defining the clean-up process is that it is > >difficult to ensure that a specific IP address and the corresponding > >record are no longer being used. Considering the huge address space, > >and the unlikelyhood of collision within 64 bits of the interface > >identifiers, a process which would remove the record after no traffic > >has been seen from a node in a period of time (e.g., a year) might be > >one possible approach.</t> > > Great: I mean in term of explaining - however I am not sure it > should not call for a TTO (Time to Obsolecence) to be specified?
This was added just to convey the time frame, that is, "months or years" rather than "every hour". I'll change it to be a bit more vague.. -- 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
