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 Men&Mice Domain Health survey
(http://www.menandmice.com/6000/6000_domain_health.html)
Implementation wise, the DNS _is_ hard, at least if you try to implement all
the stuff the IETF has added to the 1034/1035 spec within the last 7 years
or so. If you don't think so, try and implement a full resolver.
As to whether DNS is a solution to mobility, I believe it can be part of a
solution. It certainly can't be the whole solution.
Rgds,
-drc
On 3/1/02 8:33 PM, "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
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 mobility problem or the problems caused by
lack of stability of IP addresses. and if you try to depend on DNS
to solve these problems, then you're severely constrained as to the
kinds of applications you can run...because you were using the wrong
tool for the job.
Keith
-
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which
is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.