Hi Nate No offense taken ! I don't know DNS in the kind of detail required. My concern is the amount of network traffic DNS could take compared to that used on a properly configured IP routing protocol. Again, I know the latter well - not the former.
Your comment on the 10.X.X.X range is interesting - whilst I would gladly sweep that away in an instance, I am concerned that there is a use that may break. Does anyone know what was in Icom's mind when they used that range ? 73 David --- In [email protected], Nate Duehr <n...@...> wrote: > > > On Jul 28, 2009, at 1:51 AM, dlake02 wrote: > > > I completely agree that DNS is inappropriate for instantaneous moves. > > > > 73 David - G4ULF > > > No offense intended David, but anyone who says this hasn't done it. > DNS can EASILY handle virtually instantaneous updates, when configured > and used correctly. It is NOT used correctly (like many of the > technologies in the Icom Gateway) and the attempt makes the DNS > implementation look foolish... similar to the decision to build Apache/ > Tomcat from *source* makes the use of those technologies look goofy. > No one building any other Apache/Tomcat application in the world > intended for a "network appliance" writes and releases csh scripts > (ugh) to build the things from source to use them on a common Linux > platform like CentOS... > > The whole implementation seems like an overgrown college kid's demo to > me, having been involved in multiple commercial Linux projects. Very > very odd. > > Nevertheless I digress. > > As you pointed out, DNS is not needed for anything other than IP > mapping, which seems useless right now, but seems to point to a plan > (maybe shelved?) to allow routed IP connectivity between the private > 10.x.x.x range between ID-1 rigs. It looks to me like that "vision" > was there, but never implemented. > > -- > Nate Duehr, WY0X > n...@... >
