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?]

  • From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist
  • Date: Sun Nov 28 09:11:12 2004 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


(catching up)

On 2004-11-22, at 18.52, Paul Vixie wrote:

>
>>> none of those three things is acceptable, not even as a compromise.
>>
>> The current solution I see for this is still IPv6. Except that one 
>> moves
>> the complete 'Independence' problem a layer higher. Enter:
>>
>> HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
>> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
>
> this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be 
> universal.
> (let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, 
> and
> it was simpler than this.)

I am not convinced A6/DNAME would have solved all problems, not even 
all of the ones you pointed out.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQancTKarNKXTPFCVEQJ22QCfQ32v6oWBDVe9t2CVRT1vuc0BtggAoMbz
xpInNhcRVCGIMdkm5GX40ozj
=s5iV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----