Re: IPv6 Irony.

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

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=D2341B890AD12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&CFTOKEN=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