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

[bmanning@karoshi.com]

bad practice or no, with DNS, its part of the protocol. 
same is true of SNMP.  MIBS use IP addresses, not names.


> 
> 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
> >
> >
>