Re: IPv6 Conventions

[sthaug () nethelp no]

> > > No, the same Internet Protocol.
>
> > I believe he meant different IP addresses
>
> No, that can't be, he would have said "IP addresses".
>
> > and I highly recommend doing so.
>
> > If you do so, then you can move services around and name things independent of
> > the actual host that they happen to be on at the moment without having to renumber
> > or rename.
>
> The DNS is already a layer of indirection so in most cases this makes things harder first (having to remember which 
> address is on which host) so they may be easier later (not touching the DNS when services go to a new box). In my 
> opinion, this isn't a good tradeoff most of the time. Only if you want/need addresses to be a particular way (like 
> short for DNS servers) that's helpful.

Far from it. Running services on separate IP addresses is extremely
important to enable services to move (to a different box) independently.
It has little to do with wanting addresses to be a particular way, and
much more to do with *other* places (e.g. firewalls) where IP addresses
are used and not names.

> I was reluctant to do stateless autoconfig for servers at first but it's really rock solid, as long as you're 
> reasonably sure no rogue router advertisements will show up on the subnet in question there's no reason to avoid it.

Shudder.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no