On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Brian Kantor <Brian@ucsd.edu> wrote:

(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:46:11AM +0100, Max Lock wrote:
> 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 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