Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes
jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Tue, 08 December 2009 21:59 UTC
Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B514D3A6A8D for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:59:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7+MeNYYPX7p for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:59:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012253A6999 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:59:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 9EF076BE552; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:58:50 -0500 (EST)
To: rrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <20091208215850.9EF076BE552@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:58:50 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:59:04 -0000
> From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> > I'm talking about the map reply record in a map request > ... > My personal opinion is that you can only use that record to establish a > new reverse mapping entry when it does travel the mapping system and > only if the mapping system is changed to modify it. Well, this is a complex topic. E.g. if it is signed in some way, you could in fact rely on it. You can also use it in a 'temporary' way while you look up the mapping authoritatively. Etc, etc. Noel
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes Noel Chiappa
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes HeinerHummel
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes Scott Brim
- Re: [rrg] Host changes vs. network changes Joel M. Halpern