[82084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Jul 8 15:48:36 2005
In-Reply-To: <41EC8387-77D2-4F4E-9509-41A3870DA5D8@muada.com>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 17:33:59 -0700
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 6, 2005, at 3:34 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Well, maybe I'm too optimistic here, but I believe that if a real
> solution to the DFZ problem presents itself, the IETF will bend
> over backwards and then some to shoehorn it into IP.
I'd say yes. You are too optimistic. :-).
> But it certainly looks like a small DFZ table and portable address
> space are fundamentally incompatible.
Well, yes. Of course. If you make the routing locator also be the
endpoint identifier, then _of course_ you must deal with the
topological significance of the endpoint identifier. It sort of
follows. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately, I do not believe a host-based solution like shim6 will
ever be operationally deployable as it requires a rewrite of kernel
stacks and such. I'm told people are already deploying IPv6 stacks
that do not support the "mandatory" IPSEC goop and there is an
expectation stack developers are going to tack on an optional bit of
black magic that is used only in very rare circumstances? I have to
admit some skepticism.
Rgds,
-drc
