[75732] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Mon Nov 22 13:06:07 2004
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:29:55 -0800 (PST)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041122175203.6F71C13E1A@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > 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.)
1. A6/DNAME were great idea, I'm really disappointed they are not going
forward...
2. Level of complexity is a very relative thing. To me the important is
not to overwhelm any single protocol and allow clear separation between
different levels.. In that sense if we actually are able to create new
"host identity" layer we can solve the problem with not only dynamicly
changing ip addresses but with simplified multihoming for end-user
sites. What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.
BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not
work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses
and they all require "id" that TCP can use for establishing connection
and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering reusing
part of IPv6 space for this new kind of "non-ip" addresses. I think
given large amount of available IPv6 space that is acceptable - if we
cut the pool to 1/4 we'd still have enough.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
