Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Hugo Slabbert <hugo () slabnet com>]

Couldn't tell you:

An error occurred while processing your request.

Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864 

Masataka: Is there an alt link?  It sounds like it could be an interesting 
read.

--
Hugo

hugo () slabnet com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on textsecure & redphone)

On Thu 2015-Oct-22 12:34:07 +0000, Nicholas Warren <nwarren () barryelectric com> wrote:

> 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, if
> > > not
> > > >>        all, customers
> > > >>
> > > >>     2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering
> > > >
> > > > Upgrade the vendors.  Nodes already renumber themselves automatically
> > > > when a new prefix appears.
> > >
> > > Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces
> > for
> > > smooth 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 automatically
> > renumber
> > > multihomed 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=D2341B890A
> > >
> > D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C
> > > FTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194
> > >
> > > which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is
> > doable.
> > >
> > > 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: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature