3 Jun
2012
3 Jun
'12
9:54 p.m.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian(a)ucsd.edu> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Max Lock wrote:
IP
address for their subnet registrations, What prevents us from doing
using something like dyndns now? What would it take to allow specification
of names rather than addresses. really does this not just simply cause an
extra dns lookup? not the best or most efficient implimentation, but
mighty convenient.
-Eric
AF6EP
As regards to tunnelling, I thought it was
policy that to tunnel to /44
you need a static IP I read somewhere. Technically of course it's
possible to tunnel to any accessable IP, I subscribe to a dynamic DNS
service to track my VPN end points for example.
-Cheers Max. G7UOZ.
No, it's not a policy, just a practical matter as the tunnel ("encap")
table is only updated at most once a day and many of the stations which
incorporate it manually do so less often than that. There is interest
in accomodating 'dyndns' and similar measures in a future implementation.
- Brian
other than allowing gateway owners to specify a domain name rather than an