[98060] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Tue Jul 24 12:25:06 2007
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:59:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to:
<EF2F0EC839870F43A6637360BC12ABD402A3D639@PACDCEXCMB05.cable.comcast.com>
To: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: Chad Oleary <oleary.chad@gmail.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Durand, Alain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> > Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
> >
> > Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by
> > the certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise,
> > for example, better solutions are needed for things like
> > multi-homing, last I checked.
>
> It is just the same multi-homing as v4. No better for sure.
yup, and see below for a bug-a-boo
> > DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story.
> > Add, since a host can have many preferred addresses, which to
> > use? How do deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?
>
> This is a very good point. Having multiple addresses per interface
> introduce a lot a complexity that is not well understood today.
> However, nothing forces you there. If you do not run ULA, but
> run PA or PI space, you can very well manage only one v6 address
> per interface.
I think you mean 'PI' not 'PA or PI' because if you have PA and multihome
you'll have 2 addresses then have to play the 'which one is 'best' game...
