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

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>]

-----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-----