From: MMoniz (ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 19:36:04 GMT-3
Howard,
Man did you say that right...the biggest problems I have ever faced in
re-addressing were programmers
who wrote their programs to communicate with a certain address. Talk about
creating job security!!
For the most part re-addressing should not be a nightmare...particularly if
most devices are DHCP,
even reserved.
and of course those who always insist on using staic routes !!!
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 6:04 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Urgent: Who can send me the details about the new lab exam
At 3:42 PM -0400 5/8/04, MMoniz wrote:
>I understand what you mean now...if he is trying to reach the real owners
of
>the 67.8.x.x,
>then yes that can be an internal issue.
>
>So internal NAT may be the way to fix this. Not pretty nor would I want to
>have to deal with that.
>
>It may be tough but I think the real solution for this would be internal
>re-addressing.
>
I certainly agree. Sooner or later, enterprises of any size don't
simply need to renumber, but set things up to be
renumbering-friendly, a term I started using when I wrote RFC 2072.
(http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2072.txt)
It's a continuing message running through my books and presentations.
Unfortunately, there are always the pointy-headed bosses that don't
want to take time renumbering, and won't enforce application
programming standards that make applications address-independent. As
the saying goes, "you can pay me now or you can pay me later."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:08 GMT-3