To:
"Robert Elz" <kre@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Cc:
<ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <namedroppers@ops.ietf.org>, <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>, <dnsop@cafax.se>
From:
"Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 14:53:20 +0100
Importance:
Normal
In-Reply-To:
<4260.997276490@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Reply-To:
<alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Robert Elz wrote: I have no arguments with your comments other than: > The only real problems are that with IPv4 we > allowed the IP addresses to be configured everywhere ... If *configuration* were the 'only' problem it might be possible to fix renumbering. The fact that applications expect they need to know about the addresses in use will compound the problem such that it will be very difficult if not impossible to make renumbering completely transparent. I have no doubt we can find a way to completely automate renumbering, but I seriously doubt that we can 'fix' all of the application developers, and their products. Given this state, the end user will be exposed to renumbering events. We either accept this and find a way to scale routing without renumbering, or accept that NAT will persist. Tony