On 2/28/02 at 2:02 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: >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... I'm not sure I understand this. For most of the application layer protocols that I deal with everyday (SMTP, POP, IMAP, HTTP) , and a large class of similar protocols, a stable DNS name is perfectly reasonable substitute for a stable IP address. Do you think that there is not a huge class of protocols that can reasonably use dynamic DNS, or do you simply think that there are a significant number of problems for which a stable IP address is required? >...or that there's no need for platforms to support mobile IP. Now, there is no question that anyone who thinks it's reasonable to change an IP address when there exists an active connection to that IP address is just being loopy. This is an issue for mobile IP (leaving aside whether the current crop of mobile IP protocols is a good solution for that problem), but I don't see that as the problem that dynamic DNS is trying to solve. pr -- Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102