nanog mailing list archives
RE: IPv6 Irony.
From: Nicholas Warren <nwarren () barryelectric com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:34:07 +0000
Worth* Thank you, - Nich Warren
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM To: Masataka Ohta Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony. Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it. Thank you, - Nich Warren-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM To: Mark Andrews Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. Mark Andrews wrote:Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, ifnotall, customers 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumberingUpgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically when a new prefix appears.Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfacesforsmooth ISP handover?Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0).How much is the customer support cost for the service?This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on demand as address associated with those names change.As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automaticallyrenumbermultihomed hosts and routers The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation Protocol HANA http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2090000/2089037/p124-kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890AD12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&CFTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it isdoable.But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. Masataka Ohta
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Irony., (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Max Tulyev (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Paul S. (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Yucong Sun (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Ca By (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Rinse Kloek (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Sander Steffann (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Mark Andrews (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 21)
- RE: IPv6 Irony. Nicholas Warren (Oct 22)
- RE: IPv6 Irony. Nicholas Warren (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Hugo Slabbert (Oct 22)
- Re: IPv6 Irony. Masataka Ohta (Oct 22)