[75655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Fri Nov 19 15:06:18 2004
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Date: 19 Nov 2004 20:03:20 +0000
In-Reply-To: <419E4089.6090406@gurunet.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
kloch@gurunet.net ("Kevin Loch") writes:
> FWIW, I have submitted an I-D for a method that does not require overlay
> prefixes, extra routing table entries or globally unique AS's:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loch-multi6-alternate-path-encoding-01.txt
either of these limitations...
o A maximum of two alternate networks (for a total of three
networks) can be encoded on a single unicast address.
o Renumbering when changing networks is not eliminated and is
actually made worse because changing any of the networks requires
renumbering. Worse yet, even changing the routing preference
between the the networks requires renumbering.
...is fatal to this approach.
i still prefer A6/DNAME. (dammit.)
--
Paul Vixie
