[75942] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Nov 29 04:22:42 2004
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 01:20:14 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411282226270.17114@rampart.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========50EEA244423B20B4A5B8==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
>> 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.
>>
>
> This makes some sense, however, how does the client system know which
> address it should use? what lets the client know that the path from
> client->server-address-ATT is better/worse/same as the path from
> client->server-address-MFN or client->server-address-uu ? I would think
> that the 'best' solution for all parties would be 'one' address for an =
end
> system, or one path to the end system.
>
Because when it matters, the administrator of the zone has the option of
removing the DNAME records for the provider that is sucking at the moment.
Not a panacea, but, at least help.
Single address may or may not be the best solution. One path to end system
is definitely NOT the right answer for everyone. More paths is less=20
failure.
> Perhaps this is just 'normal' technology acceptance process, and perhaps
> I'm missing a great many things in 'the v6-way', but if the multihoming
> can't be worked out in a sane manner I can't see rollout and acceptance =
of
> v6 coming any time soon.
>
Apparently, you are, because, the whole DNAME/A6 thing was deprecated and
we were lamenting that it's existence would have made this somewhat simpler
to administer.
> there are, and will be in the future, folks that WANT NAT, regardless of
> the perceived 'badness' of it...
>
Why? You still have yet to justify this position.
Owen
--=20
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========50EEA244423B20B4A5B8==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFBqunOn5zKWQ/iqj0RApNAAJ9g2YkaCsftL50Hl2LnCRb5bst3WQCfcmiG
1jjeSu989a1oO5mX85aGmyA=
=QMkl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========50EEA244423B20B4A5B8==========--
