[26671] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Selection of Appropriate Local SMTP Relay
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jlewis@lewis.org)
Wed Jan 12 00:27:41 2000
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:25:48 -0500 (EST)
From: jlewis@lewis.org
To: Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com>
Cc: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@iMach.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <87iu101x7c.fsf@challah.msrl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10001120020440.1229-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 11 Jan 2000, Michael Shields wrote:
> > Specifically, if you have a set of well known IP addresses for common
> > services, thus something like:
> >
> > 223.255.255.1 - Primary DNS
> > 223.255.255.2 - Secondary DNS
> > 223.255.255.3 - SMTP Mail
> > 223.255.255.4 - Time Server
>
> Why did you choose to have exactly 2 DNS servers and exactly 1 SMTP
> and "time" server?
This seems a big drawback to the standard IP number method. Think about a
network sharing an IGP containing thousands of dialup ports. That's where
I am. How many dialup ports can you have before one SMTP gateway just
doesn't cut it? Sure you can play games with load balancing, layer 4
switches, or perhaps route filtering but why force money or effort to be
wasted on such things?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| Spammers will be winnuked or
System Administrator | nestea'd...whatever it takes
Atlantic Net | to get the job done.
_________http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________
