[75939] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Mon Nov 29 02:13:06 2004
In-Reply-To: <20041128164742.60E6C13E12@sa.vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:10:52 +0100
To: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul,
On 2004-11-28, at 17.47, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> (catching up)
>
> (you missed some stuff.)
Yes, I have had lot's of fun reading through almost a week of Nanog...
> 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.
Somehow I must be confused. AFAIK DANME/A6 is/would be/could have been
of great help with the name to number mapping when renumbering. But the
main problem is the actual renumbering of the HOSTs. And I fail to see
how A6/DNAME would help. As a matter of fact the problems that was
brought to multi6 are a lot more than what you have listed A6/DNAME to
address. See RFC3582 and draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-03.txt
for an overview.
> given that ipv6 is now somewhat deployed without rapid renumbering, and
> that rapid renumbering could have required logic in "both endpoints" of
> every flow, but that there are now a lot of "other endpoints" without
> any
> such logic, it seems to me that MULTI6's only option is to make NAT
> work,
> even if you call it "site local addressing" or even "ULA's". (show
> me.)
ULAs are not a product of multi6.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQarLg6arNKXTPFCVEQJUzgCfSgII26+xcvM8BQAb2P68UQjiR8gAnjfk
xkw0hLIVRrz4RDJcxAzKksRC
=z9eO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
