Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!labrea!jade!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!CERF
From: CERF@A.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Telephone Access Controllers (TACs) and SLIP...
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU]10-Nov-87.11:57:32.CERF>
Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 11:57:00 EST
Article-I.D.: <[A.ISI.EDU]10-Nov-87.11:57:32.CERF>
Posted: Tue Nov 10 11:57:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Nov-87 07:37:10 EST
References: <8711100623.AA19378@opal.berkeley.edu>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 16


I would be a little nervous about dynamic name/address binding
so that the host could receive calls (mail, file transfer, etc),
but comfortable with originating calls - assuming, of course,
that this meant you could not masquerade as an arbitrary
host name by using SGMP and asking for messages for that host.

Apart from security concerns (which may be present regardless
of ability to receive calls as well as originating them), getting
the Internet to handle dynamic name/address binding, avoiding
spoofing and dealing with the potential for multiple name servers
to be out of sync, causing confusion, seems quite an ambitious
chore. Perhaps Mr. Wasley has thought this through and can offer
his view of the architectural considerations?

Vint