Re: To address or NAT to address?

To: David_Conrad at isc.org (David R. Conrad)
Subject: Re: To address or NAT to address?
From: Bill Manning <bmanning at ISI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Cc: deering at cisco.com, David_Conrad at isc.org, charliep at iprg.nokia.com, ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <3847336D.FBB59726@isc.org> from "David R. Conrad" at Dec 2, 99 07:05:17 pm

> My point was that suggesting that reliance
> should not be placed on the DNS has been, is, and most likely will be contrary
> to what happens in the real world.
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc

Someone who used to work here at ISI had a saying, "There are no urgent
DNS problems."  I did not believe then and am finding less reason to
do so as time progresses.  An interesting viewpoint is espoused in the
recent draft by Akien et.al. on Middleware.  According to that draft,
we are headed into an Infrastructure that will not work w/o available
support services e.g. policy db, CA/key servers, DHCP/DNS, ad.nausea.


-- 
--bill

References:
- Re: To address or NAT to address?
  - From: David R. Conrad

Prev by Date: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by Date: Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?
Previous by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Next by thread: Re: To address or NAT to address?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: To address or NAT to address?

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.