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 PM
To:
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
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
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 PROTECTED];
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 name as
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 at
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 for
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: Re:
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:
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]
Sent:
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
In
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,
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
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
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
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
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 is
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 that
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
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, and/or
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 connection dies
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
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 MenMice Domain Health survey
(http://www.menandmice.com/6000/6000_domain_health.html)
Implementation wise, the DNS _is_ hard,
23 matches
Mail list logo
