[75731] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Mon Nov 22 12:52:33 2004
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
of "Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:07:12 +0100."
<1101143232.31767.89.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:52:03 +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > none of those three things is acceptable, not even as a compromise.
>
> The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
> the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
>
> HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be universal.
(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and
it was simpler than this.)
