nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list () nrg4u com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:17:13 +0100
Paul Vixie wrote:
(catching up)(you missed some stuff.)On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:(let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and it was simpler than this.)I am not convinced A6/DNAME would have solved all problems, not even all of the ones you pointed out.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. the DNAME was expected to be inside your own zone. presto, no lock-in. my theory at the time, bitter and twisted i admit, was that we had too many ISP employees in positions of power inside IETF, and that A6/DNAME was seen as shifting too much power to the endsystems. i've since learned that it was just another case of FID (fear, ignorance, and doubt). naturally this presumed that you could add and delete ipv6 supernets from a LAN, which appeared to be the case at that time, though now with dhcp6 and static addressing making a comeback that's no longer clear. in any case there was a need for a TCP option for endpoint-renumber, which was killed in a committee somewhere (i don't know which one, or where or when.)
As someone actively working on maintaining an TCP stack (FreeBSD 5.x and 6.x) I can tell you this is a blessing. Throwing more stuff into TCP is only making matter worse and leads to lots of really buggy and non-working implementations. TCP is pretty complex already and only a few people are really up to it.
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.)
If you want that, then go for SCTP. And please don't add any more layering violations. It makes implementors life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems. -- Andre
Current thread:
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]], (continued)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Paul Vixie (Nov 28)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 28)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Pekka Savola (Nov 28)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] william(at)elan.net (Nov 28)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 28)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 28)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Nov 28)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Andre Oppermann (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Petri Helenius (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Andre Oppermann (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Jeroen Massar (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Petri Helenius (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Andre Oppermann (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Paul Vixie (Nov 29)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Joe Abley (Nov 29)