> A widely deployed dynamic DNS makes a good deal of service location protocol > unnecessary. Seems like a good thing to me. I don't have the slightest doubt that dynamic DNS is useful for some things, and I'm sorry that my earlier messages gave that impression. It's quite clear to me that, when a stable IP address is not available, having a stable DNS name is better than nothing. It's also quite clear to me that stable DNS names are not an adequate substitute for stable IP addresses, and that the existence of a service that can be used to update DNS names when IP addresses change should not be taken as an indication (for example) that it's okay for providers to change IP addresses at a whim, or that there's no need for platforms to support mobile IP. (There's also a difference between what works for one individual and what works for everyone. You might find that dynamic DNS is perfectly sufficient to patch up the lack of a stable address for your host and for the applications that you run on that host, but this doesn't mean that it's suitable as a general-purpose mechanism.) But I didn't see the folks who are putting up Dynamic DNS in Minneapolis making any claims to the effect that it was suitable for every purpose. They are just providing us with the opportunity to try this technology, which is entirely commendable. Keith