new 6bone pTLA prefix proposal, comments by 4 March 2002 please

[Guy L. Allgood]

Bill Et All,

With good planning, ie reducing TTL's to near nothing 1 or 2 weeks in
advance, minimizing caching, and having programmers/admins review where
these hard coded addresses may reside;  Most should be easily cut over where
DNS and DNS services are concerned.  The hard coding of addresses into your
utils & programs should at best, IMHO, be considered bad practice.  It may
be a good thing to do this just to make certain none of these practices are
being used and give all a chance to review what is being done and how to do
it better.

Just my 2 cents worth anyway,
Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: bmanning@karoshi.com <bmanning@karoshi.com>
To: Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
Cc: 6bone@ISI.EDU <6bone@ISI.EDU>
Date: Monday, February 18, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: new 6bone pTLA prefix proposal, comments by 4 March 2002 please


>> In addition, I would like you to consider some possible policy changes:
>>
>> 1. requiring existing pTLA /24 and /28 holders to renumber to a new /32,
>> unless justifying why it is not possible due to usage and/or address
layout
>> issues, within 6 months (12 months?) of the change in policy.
>>
>
> there are areas/places where renumbering fails miserably,
> notably within DNS, SNMP, NTP and anywhere applications
> depend on knowing the whereabouts of remote systems, -by
> address-.  Many applications use the IP address to reduce
> the delay in a DNS lookup. These applications are sensitive
> to wholesale renumbering, often to to point that they have
> no idea how broadly the hardcoded IP address has spread.
>
> Other than that, I expect that having processes in place
> to evaluate useage is a good thing.
>
>--bill
>
>