North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan

  • From: Durand, Alain
  • Date: Tue Jul 24 10:55:08 2007


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Chad Oleary
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
> Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by 
> the certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise, 
> for example, better solutions are needed for things like 
> multi-homing, last I checked.

It is just the same multi-homing as v4. No better for sure.

> Perhaps the biggest challenge, IMO, in this much more dynamic 
> network, is DNS. How do I (or my new vendor) readdress every 
> node at my site, and actually know what device has what 
> address? rtadvd doesn't do DNS updates. DHCPv6 doesn't even 
> hand out addresses.

This is not correct. DHCPv6 does hand out addresses. The status
of DHCPv6 implemenations has improved dramatically over what
it was 12-18 months ago.
See the article in the IETF journal about the DHCPv6 bake-off
we did at RIPE-NCC last March.

> DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story. 
> Add, since a host can have many preferred addresses, which to 
> use? How do deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?

This is a very good point. Having multiple addresses per interface
introduce a lot a complexity that is not well understood today.
However, nothing forces you there. If you do not run ULA, but
run PA or PI space, you can very well manage only one v6 address
per interface.

   - Alain.