Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>:
You wouldn't care about touch points if even a large number were
reliable and secure, and that is the key.
I'm not sure I understand that sentence. What's a "touch point"?
And what does security have to do with any of this? My issue is with how
much administrative overhead my network interface imposes on me over its
entire lifecycle, potentially including multiple changes iof ISP.
At the consumer level I think
it's VERY important that most people not care about the IP address they
are assigned. In fact it's important that they not have to know
anything about what they're addressed! And you're right: it doesn't
matter whether it's v4 or v6. So. Where are the gaps?
Well. Ideally, when I plug my router into the ISP's cable, it should
invisibly negotiate an IP address range with the ISP as DHCP does now.
Thereafter, whenever a machine initializes its network access, it
should
(1) grab an IP address from the range
Ideally, the address allocations should be stable even as machines are
inserted and deleted onm my local net, so other peoples' DNS caches
don't become invalid every time I have to reboot a server. Perhaps
base them on a hash of the requesting machine's MAC address, with
backoff in the (rare) collision cases?
(2) propagate updates to my DNS servers so lookup-by-name works.
This is important. As long as this isn't true, DHCP is useless for servers.
I should be able to declare my firewall and redirection rules by local
host name and have everything work,
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf