Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 8 jul 2008, at 20.41, Keith Moore wrote:

1) I do understand where the current "last 64 bits are EUId" comes from. 2) Someone (I think it was Keith Moore) said that if the scheme doesn't work for servers AND hosts (i.e no difference) it's a bad scheme. I sort of agree with that, but the reason it doesn't work for servers is simply lack of management tools, and the fact that a lot of protocols / implementations tend to use addresses rather than names.

I disagree that it doesn't work for servers. (Or it would be better to say that I'd like to know why you think it doesn't work for servers.)


Well, when I change that broken NIC in my server, it will receive a new address that needs to be reflected in the DNS. Sure, that can be automated or updated, but in general you want some stability in the server address. I have actually run my personal mail-server on an EUI-64 address for quite some time. The problem when the NIC failed was that it took until the cache expiry for some servers to contact it again. Like ietf.org.

There are other addresses, like router interfaces where EUI64 addresses are simply a nightmare, as when you are doing network troubleshooting you need to keep 128 bits in HEX in memory - which I am too stupid to be able to...an alternative would be to have routing tables do DNS lookups for NEXT_HOPS - it's just a lot of DNS lookups....

Best regards,

- kurtis -



_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]