• neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    As a network admin dealing mostly with servers, routing, VPNs, I mostly prefer statically addressed IPv4 as identifiers, but this also has issues as it’s at the mercy of the ISP… luckily for me my network is only addressed internally over VPN, so all of the ~2000 hosts for which I am responsible reside on the 172.16.0.0/13 address space, where I am the dictator and BOFH.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t remember where I was going with the above, to be honest. Probably expressing my distain for DNS as an operational requirement instead of a convenient option.

        I haven’t dug deeply myself either, but I don’t see why instances can’t connect together dynamically, independent from address or hostname, instead using key exchange to authenticate. FQDN being such an integral part of the functionality is a huge liability

          • neidu2@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            That’s an example of an optional convenience, with which I have no problem.

            Would any sensible person use DNS for accessing your site? Yes
            When the amish take control of the .vip TLD in an effort to ban automotive transport, will you have to build the site up from scratch just because you give it a new domain? No.

            I don’t remember the details, but there was a post ago made by an instance admin who could no longer use the domain name he has built his lemmy instance around, and (according to the comments, at least) that basically meant that he had to scrap everything and start over.