Re: BGP announcements and small providers
What is difficult about renumbering DNS entries? You DO refer to your websites with hostnames don't you? The nameservers themselves are a bitch (since you break all the clients unless you're using dhcp) to renumber, but none of your other services should have problems. What protocols (besides FTP) are you referring to? FTP translators are common enough, and I am not aware of any other user application protocols that transmit IP addresses. Stephen Sprunk At 14:31 26 02 97 -0500, you wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Lyndon Levesley wrote:
Nameservers are a bit harder to renumber, but that's not too bad.
When you have hundreds of virtual web sites?
Wonder how long it'll be before ISPs rather than corporates start to use NAT for most of their network.
When our customers stop wanting to use applications that carry IP addresses at the application layer. Until then, NAT is a no-go.
pbd
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
What protocols (besides FTP) are you referring to? FTP translators are common enough, and I am not aware of any other user application protocols that transmit IP addresses.
I believe CUSeeMe does. I believe NAT also breaks IPSec and mobile IP. Maybe I am wrong, though... pbd
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:13:14 -0500 (EST) Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org> wrote:
I believe CUSeeMe does. I believe NAT also breaks IPSec and mobile IP. Maybe I am wrong, though...
No, I've had this experience also. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (3)
-
Bradley Dunn
-
Neil J. McRae
-
Stephen Sprunk