[75920] in North American Network Operators' Group
A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pekka Savola)
Sun Nov 28 13:56:39 2004
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 20:51:44 +0200 (EET)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20041128164742.60E6C13E12@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its intrinsic
> multihoming support. the idea was that you could go from N upstreams to
> N+1 (or N-1) merely by adding/deleting DNAME RRs. so if you wanted to
> switch from ISP1 to ISP2 you'd start by adding a connection to ISP2, then
> add a DNAME for ISP2, then delete the DNAME for ISP1, then disconnect ISP1.
>
> the DNAME was expected to be inside your own zone. presto, no lock-in.
> my theory at the time, bitter and twisted i admit, was that we had too
> many ISP employees in positions of power inside IETF, and that A6/DNAME
> was seen as shifting too much power to the endsystems. i've since learned
> that it was just another case of FID (fear, ignorance, and doubt).
[...]
Isn't about the same achievable with about two or three lines of
scripting (or a new zone parsing option for bind ;) with a lot less
protocol complexity?
As you note, A6/DNAME wasn't a panacea. A lot additional stuff is
needed to achieve the goal. It seems to me that actually the A6/DNAME
part is a relatively simple one to achieve using current mechanisms.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
