From: Howard C. Berkowitz (hcb@gettcomm.com)
Date: Sat May 08 2004 - 20:38:41 GMT-3
At 6:36 PM -0400 5/8/04, MMoniz wrote:
>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.
Rather than a DNS name
>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 linking DNS to DHCP
>
>and of course those who always insist on using staic routes !!!
>
Static routes aren't unreasonable, when they are machine-generated.
See my http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9811/ppt/berk/index.htm
>
>-----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