Re: The renumbering problem [Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on the NAT66 draft]

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 18, 2008, at 16:01, Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:22:14PM -0600, james woodyatt wrote:
>> I am so *so* tired of making excuses for bad code.  Just once, I'd
>> like to be able to say, "I see your coders thought it would be a good
>> idea to store IP addresses in a persistent store without any cache
>> coherency protocol, and now you can't renumber your network without
>> eating the time and expense of qualifying a radical new  
>> implementation
>> of your hugely business-critical software application.  You know
>> what?  That's your own fault.  Not ours.  p.s. I bet you'll read that
>> tech-note next time, right?"
>
> OK, I bite.  What answer do you give to folks that need to renumber
> things like site-to-site VPN endpoints, which affects lots of  
> configuration
> to be changed by *other* folks (their VPN peers)?

Please, help me understand why solving this problem requires storing  
IP addresses in persistent storage without a coherent caching  
protocol.  I'm not seeing it-- probably because I'm not sure I  
understand the nature and scope of the problem very well.

For the sake of argument, I'll accept that reasonable people currently  
perceive it to be necessary.  My hunch is that those folks should  
probably be using DNS-SD instead of the fragile cruftiness they're  
struggling against now.  Maybe if I understood the problem better, I  
could suggest a more detailed alternative to their current solution.


--
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering