[7857] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP announcements and small providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Wed Feb 26 17:54:32 1997
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:35:08 -0600
To: Bradley Dunn <bradley@dunn.org>
From: Stephen Sprunk <sprunk@paranet.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
What is difficult about renumbering DNS entries? You DO refer to your
websites with hostnames don't you? The nameservers themselves are a bitch
(since you break all the clients unless you're using dhcp) to renumber, but
none of your other services should have problems.
What protocols (besides FTP) are you referring to? FTP translators are
common enough, and I am not aware of any other user application protocols
that transmit IP addresses.
Stephen Sprunk
At 14:31 26 02 97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Lyndon Levesley wrote:
>
>> Nameservers are a bit harder to renumber, but that's not too bad.
>
>When you have hundreds of virtual web sites?
>
>> Wonder how long it'll be before ISPs rather than corporates start to
>> use NAT for most of their network.
>
>When our customers stop wanting to use applications that carry IP
>addresses at the application layer. Until then, NAT is a no-go.
>
>
>pbd
>
>
>
