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

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 16:58 +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > And please don't add any more layering violations.  It makes implementors
> > > life painful and kills any architectual cleaniess in operating systems.
> >
> > i have long wished for and sometimes needed a way to renumber a host w/o
> > killing or restarting its active tcp flows.  this isn't a layering
> > violation.  tcp should be able to know about endpoint-renumber events.
>
> This is a layering violation and has endless security implications.

Full Ack. IMHO SCTP and HIP are the way to go at the moment. Both
support both IPv4 and IPv6 btw. New technologies are required to solve
old problems, which is not that odd now is it ? :)

<SNIP>

> Have you ever worked in luser techsupport?  I did for the fun of it.

Most people would refuse it :)

> It's not pretty.  And that's why IPv6 is not going to fly.  It's broken
> by design in so many places that it's impossible to explain it by phone
> to Joe Average (with IQ100, I'm not even talking about the average US high
> school dropout flipping burger in your favorite fast food chain).

I am not flipping burgers, but did once work in a cheese factory (Gouda
cheese anyone? :), I am wondering how you could keep this piggie from
flying though. Could you elaborate or point me to a doc where you most
likely already did?

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part