nanog mailing list archives
RE: renumbering and roaming
From: pflores () wcg net (Paul Flores)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 16:11:22 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In message <19980518135928.37530 () mcs net>, Karl Denninger writes:After several discussions, we came up with this solutionthat we thinkworks well to support standard services for roaming users: Support a .local. root domain in your DNS servers. Examples of DNS hostnames would be mail.local., ntp.local., news.local.,etc. When aroamer dials up he generally uses the DNS servers assignedby the NAS;these addresses would be authoritative on a provider-by-provider basis. If all networks supported this schema all userscould simplyhave these addresses coded into their client software and would connect to the proper machines as they differ on various networks. iPass is currently building an Internet-Draft specifyingthe detailsof this approach. What do you think?That doesn't work; too many of those things must behard-coded numbers(specifically, the DNS servers).What has to be hard-coded besides the DNS servers? Once you have a DNS server assigned (which is typically done by the NAS anyway) the rest is simple.
Ass-umeing (never ass-ume, right) that the NAS supports the LCP extensions.
In our experience, well over 90% of roaming users (which excludes UNIX and Mac users) use dynamically-assigned DNS servers. Clearly this approach won't work for those clients that don't support the LCP extensions, but we consider this "Best Current Practice."
Okay, that is reasonable. Why not take the extra step of reserving some 'internal' IP space, and make it work with 100% of the clients?
Those clients that can't use dynamic DNS server assignment will have to use the home ISP's services.
Combine a non-advertised, reserved subnet with the .local TLD. (I might point out, that clients not using the the local .local assignments, will get the 'home ISPs' services addresses. I am not quite sure if you meant all their services or just DNS, but that is an important distinction to make here) I would also point out that ANY failure of the local DNS would render everything useless to the roamer. If you had a combination of both, you could actually put the hardwired IPs/ .local domains in a host file on the roamer's machine. You would sacrifice some flexibility, but would probably solve a few nagging details this way. (on second thought, this is probably not such a good idea... :> )
We consider it important to make sure as many NASes and PPP clients as possible support dynamic DNS. About the only major obstacle to that is OT/PPP (MacOS) and, to a lesser degree, UNIX..LOCAL along with defined addresses, declared as"non-routable" (ie: localonly) *DOES* do the trick.Routability and IP address definitions are secondary to the problem we're discussing here--the ability for roamers to use local services provided by the POP provider.
Exactly. Why does it matter if you use DNS, private IP space, or a combination of both. IMHO, both provides the most flexibility.
Let DNS do the work for you. I don't see the need to force IP assignments on the Internet community.
Force? I don't think force is the word. No one forces people to use reserved IP space for their private networks. To me, this is simply an extension to 1918, with the addition of some very sensible service layer options for Service Providers. Paul Flores Williams -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBNWCkd71al1suqRKtEQLLHwCdGyvWzGRTDepkJvnQ4MFKCQSFjggAoI1H 7onUFl+f5cSU/MrbFL158t/q =yEDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Current thread:
- RE: renumbering and roaming Paul Flores (May 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: renumbering and roaming Paul Mansfield (May 19)
- Re: renumbering and roaming William Allen Simpson (May 19)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Clayton O'Neill (May 19)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Dean Anderson (May 19)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Charles Sprickman (May 19)
- RE: renumbering and roaming Peter Galbavy (May 20)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Karl Denninger (May 20)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Clayton O'Neill (May 19)
- RE: renumbering and roaming Peter Galbavy (May 20)