nanog mailing list archives
why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted
From: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis () neustar biz>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:22:07 -0400
At 8:22 -0700 5/29/07, David Conrad wrote:
Jordi, On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,Why? The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old protocol. Even the way you ask for names is different (A vs. AAAA). Why should anyoneassume a one-to-one mapping between the two Internets based on those protocols?
I'll take a stab at "why?"First - "the way you ask for names" is not different at the application level, it is different in the "layer" in which you find where to shoot packets. It's like paying at a cash register - you pay but by cash, charge, atm, ...
But why "need" - okay, need is a strong word, but, if the user is coming from a search engine result page, the search engine is going to hand a URL with a machine name. The search engine doesn't know if the user to service has a v6 pipe (or a v4 pipe even), so the URL won't be customized for v4/v6.
If the user types in the domain label (like "nanog") and the application then adds on TLDs and such, the application would have to try the likely set of IPv6 labels to pre-pend.
As far as any other encoding of the name, whether IPv6 is working is something that the encoder cannot know as the code will probably be run from different points of the collective IP4 and IP6 network.
OTOH - in the presentation I gave in May '04 (three years ago - and I didn't think it was pioneering even then, but who knew) I did have some "gotchas" about using the same name.
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Sarcasm doesn't scale.
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Leo Vegoda (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (May 29)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Kevin Loch (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Edward Lewis (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Edward Lewis (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 30)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 30)
- RE: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 30)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 30)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 30)
- 6bone space used still in the free (www.ietf.org over IPv6 broken) (Was: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Jeroen Massar (May 30)