Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

["Elmar K. Bins" <elmi () 4ever de>]

jeroen () unfix org (Jeroen Massar) wrote:

> > > The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one moves
> > > the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
> > >
> > > HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
> > > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
> >
> > this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be universal.
>
> It depends all on what one wants, either one gets a lot of routes and
> thus what we currently have in IPv4 or it is done completely different,
> like that.

That's the point of view of an Internet technician (ok, who's on this list,
after all...). It is not the point of a user, a manager or a corporation.

HIP is too complicated, it relies on too many parts. It will never be used
widely, unless someone find a way to _entirely_ hide it from the end-user.
I cannot see a way to do that, starting with the certificates and for a
long time not ending with server and client implementations.

It is nice in theory, it streamlines protocol interaction, adds security,
makes you mobile, but it uses too many parts in complex interconnection.

I consider it impractical on the large, although it may fit the bill for
small, technically-oriented user groups.

Elmar.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 () ID-31 news uni-berlin de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---