[75912] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Sun Nov 28 09:10:32 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041122175203.6F71C13E1A@sa.vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:10:16 +0100
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(catching up)
On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>>> 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.)
I am not convinced A6/DNAME would have solved all problems, not even
all of the ones you pointed out.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQancTKarNKXTPFCVEQJ22QCfQ32v6oWBDVe9t2CVRT1vuc0BtggAoMbz
xpInNhcRVCGIMdkm5GX40ozj
=s5iV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
