RE: IPv6 Irony.

[Nicholas Warren <nwarren () barryelectric com>]

Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently
connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it.

Thank you,
- Nich Warren

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM
> To: Mark Andrews
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony.
>
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > > Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on...
> > >
> > > Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of:
> > >
> > >     1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if
> not
> > >        all, customers
> > >
> > >     2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering
> >
> > Upgrade the vendors.  Nodes already renumber themselves automatically
> > when a new prefix appears.
>
> Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces for
> smooth ISP handover?
>
> > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely
> > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0).
>
> How much is the customer support cost for the service?
>
> > This isn't rocket science.  Firewall vendors could supply tools to
> > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall.  They could
> > even co-ordinate through a standards body.  It isn't that hard to take
> > names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules on
> > demand as address associated with those names change.
>
> As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically renumber
> multihomed hosts and routers
>
> The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation
> Protocol HANA
> http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2090000/2089037/p124-
> kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890A
> D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C
> FTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194
>
> which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is doable.
>
> But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit
> address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end
> transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here.
>
> Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not
> necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes.
>
>                                               Masataka Ohta

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: