To:
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
cc:
David Terrell <dbt@meat.net>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date:
Thu, 09 Aug 2001 00:13:47 -0400
In-reply-to:
Your message of "Thu, 09 Aug 2001 10:21:35 +0700." <944.997327295@brandenburg.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
> Keith was asking for it to be fixed below the level of the applications, > presumably because updating lots of applications (different kinds, and > just different implementations) is going to be a very long process, > whereas if things could be fixed below that everything would see instant > benefits. or more generally, I'm asking for some agreement on the degree of address stability an application should be able to expect - hopefully one that is large enough that most applications can work without having to explicitly deal with the potential for renumbering. even for those applications that do have to deal with renumbering, DNS names do not always suffice as peer names, due to the common need to map a single DNS name onto multiple addresses, the delay inherent in DNS queries, and the degraded reliability. Keith