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?]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul, On 2004-11-28, at 17.47, Paul Vixie wrote: > >> (catching up) > > (you missed some stuff.) Yes, I have had lot's of fun reading through almost a week of Nanog... > the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its > intrinsic > multihoming support. the idea was that you could go from N upstreams > to > N+1 (or N-1) merely by adding/deleting DNAME RRs. so if you wanted to > switch from ISP1 to ISP2 you'd start by adding a connection to ISP2, > then > add a DNAME for ISP2, then delete the DNAME for ISP1, then disconnect > ISP1. Somehow I must be confused. AFAIK DANME/A6 is/would be/could have been of great help with the name to number mapping when renumbering. But the main problem is the actual renumbering of the HOSTs. And I fail to see how A6/DNAME would help. As a matter of fact the problems that was brought to multi6 are a lot more than what you have listed A6/DNAME to address. See RFC3582 and draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-03.txt for an overview. > given that ipv6 is now somewhat deployed without rapid renumbering, and > that rapid renumbering could have required logic in "both endpoints" of > every flow, but that there are now a lot of "other endpoints" without > any > such logic, it seems to me that MULTI6's only option is to make NAT > work, > even if you call it "site local addressing" or even "ULA's". (show > me.) ULAs are not a product of multi6. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQarLg6arNKXTPFCVEQJUzgCfSgII26+xcvM8BQAb2P68UQjiR8gAnjfk xkw0hLIVRrz4RDJcxAzKksRC =z9eO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|