Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It is quite easy to see how an application that is designed to tolerate
renumbering is able to cope with it given appropriate O/S and protocol
level support. I suspect what is happening there is that SSH loses the
connection and then transparently attempts to reconnect before telling
the user that it has failed and dropping the entire connection state.
But most IP applications are not designed to maintain connections for
days, SSH is a rarity in that respect.
SSH is also a rarity in that there is usually a good correspondence
between a DNS name and the specific entity to which one wishes to
connect via SSH. So it makes more sense for an SSH client to try to
reconnect to a peer and continue a session than it does, say, for an FTP
client.
Renumbering your network every day is probably quite practical.
I seriously doubt that. There are very few layer 7 protocols which can
gracefully tolerate that kind of disruption, and our architecture
doesn't really give them a good way to do that. And it's not just a
naming problem.
Granted that if we were to start renumbering more frequently, we'd get
better at it. But the Internet architecture as it currently exists
doesn't come close to supporting that. Which of course, is part of why
people continue to want NAT - so at least they can avoid renumbering for
local applications.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf