Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 17:52 +0000, 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.

It depends all on what one wants, either one gets a lot of routes and
thus what we currently have in IPv4 or it is done completely different,
like that. As for it not being universal, there are quite a number of
working implementation already that seem to be proven to work quite
reliable. One of the alternatives of course is something similar as
MIPv6 etc.

> (let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and
> it was simpler than this.)

Wasn't it more because a single A6 lookup could cause one (the resolver
that is ;) to have to follow a overly long chain of A6/DNAME chains,
which thus could cause maybe somewhat infinite lookups?

I rather like DNAME btw: "ip6.int DNAME ip6.arpa", which works quite
fine. A6 is fortunately not supported any more by BIND.

On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 10:29 -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote: 

> 1. A6/DNAME were great idea, I'm really disappointed they are not going
>    forward...

It is, except maybe for the above noted 'problem'. Most of the time though
a site will have only a limited number of DNS servers, thus A6/DNAME would
be on the same server and the administrator could IMHO quite easily do the
simple replace trick on the configuration.

> 2. Level of complexity is a very relative thing. To me the important is
>    not to overwhelm any single protocol and allow clear separation between
>    different levels.. In that sense if we actually are able to create new
>    "host identity" layer we can solve the problem with not only dynamicly
>    changing ip addresses but with simplified multihoming for end-user
>    sites.

For most people on this globe the concept of 'IP' or even the phone system
is already magic :) Depends on bit who looks at it.

>    What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
>    one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.

The fun of politics ;)

>    BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not
>    work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses
>    and they all require "id" that TCP can use for establishing connection
>    and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering reusing
>    part of IPv6 space for this new kind of "non-ip" addresses. I think
>    given large amount of available IPv6 space that is acceptable - if we
>    cut the pool to 1/4 we'd still have enough.

No issue there then now is there ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part