[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler-ietf@iodesign.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 14:45:54 -0800
Reply-To: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler-ietf@iodesign.com>
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: Re: Unique handle generation

I do agree, and perhaps should have noted my statement as a leading
question. Apologies.

Christopher

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrik Fältström" <paf@cisco.com>
To: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler-ietf@iodesign.com>; <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: Unique handle generation


> At 15.55 -0800 01-03-10, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> >Same with name servers, then, if you mandate that there is one object
> >per IP address?
> 
> No. With this model you are redefining the DNS.
> 
> A domain name object is refering to a nameserver object, and that 
> nameserver object have an IP-address as an attribute. If the 
> IP-address change of that nameserver (different operation from 
> nameserver for the domain changes) the reference in the domain name 
> object is not to be changed.
> 
>     paf
> 


Home | Date list | Subject list