Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:50:10 +0200

On 15 aug 2008, at 22:09, Christian Vogt wrote:

> Regarding question (1):  I would assume that, from the following list
> of renumbering tasks, ...

> (a) hardcoded IP addresses in applications
> (b) IP addresses of hosts
> (c) IP addresses of routers
> (d) IP addresses in filter devices, such as firewalls, intrusion
>    detection systems
> (e) certificates issued for IP addresses

Shouldn't cases a and e fall under the "so don't do that" regime? Life  
is hard enough without going out of your way to make it more difficult  
than necessary...

But I guess the real question is: how do we get users to renumber? No  
matter how easy we make it (short of it being completely transparent,  
which isn't going to happen as long as we overload the functions of  
the IP address), if user simply refuse to renumber we've gained nothing.

This is one of the reasons why I think we should make an id/loc  
solution such that the locators are stripped off by the ISP. If the  
users don't get to see the locators, they can't hardcode them and  
renumbering (of the locators at least) remains a possibility.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg