16 Jan
2016
16 Jan
'16
10:33 p.m.
Coping with a changing address is trivial with dynamic DNS, and prevents
the need to send packets on (possibly) inferior routes, with (possibly)
poor latency to get to the destination - why is this worse than dealing
with IP address changes?
The impact of IP address changes does depend upon the underlying
protocols. However, lots of protocols survive IP address changes with
little or no impact. If you don't want IP address change you can tunnel
to the origin - nothing that is being suggested here precludes that, but
totally barring address changes can preclude using protocols that aren't
impacted - and can have a serious impact on performance.
Do it all - allow dynamic routing for protocols that are IP address
sensitive, and dynamic IPs for protocols that are not IP address
sensitive. We really can 'have it all'.
Don't say 'no' where we can say 'yes'. It doesn't mean that every
individual station has to allow dynamic IP addresses (every individual
station gets to choose!), but don't prevent the ones that can handle
using dynamic addresses from doing it.
This really is Burger King - "you can have it your way".
- Richard, VE7CVS
On 1/16/16 12:08 PM, Rob Janssen wrote:
I would implement that using a dynamic routing of a fixed address
rather than assignment
of a dynamic address (and having to cope with a changing address).
Rob