Re: problem dealing w/ ietf.org mail servers

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 mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf