North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
[email protected] ("Kevin Loch") writes: > FWIW, I have submitted an I-D for a method that does not require overlay > prefixes, extra routing table entries or globally unique AS's: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loch-multi6-alternate-path-encoding-01.txt either of these limitations... o A maximum of two alternate networks (for a total of three networks) can be encoded on a single unicast address. o Renumbering when changing networks is not eliminated and is actually made worse because changing any of the networks requires renumbering. Worse yet, even changing the routing preference between the the networks requires renumbering. ...is fatal to this approach. i still prefer A6/DNAME. (dammit.) -- Paul Vixie
|