On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's why we have ULAs and multiple prefixes. >> > > ULA's are of limited use. I still want to start my washing machine > regardless of whether I'm at home or not. And you'll know the current IPv6 address of that washing machine how? If you assume renumbering, then the inevitable conclusion is that the address at which you can reach the washing machine from outside your home will change. Therefore, something has to store that address somewhere that's accessible from outside the home, and it has to update it frequently enough that there are no significant outages. I don't see how this requirement is different whether you use NPTv6+ULA or dynamic global addresses. The only difference that I see is that in the case where the machine has a global address, it knows what that address is without having to ask a rendezvous server outside the network. In the case where it only has ULA, it doesn't know what its address is unless it asks a server. > I don't like to think that NAT is inevitable but frankly the people >> in this working group don't get to vote on that. >> >> >> Actually they do. They have the freedom to specify alternatives, and >> depending on how good a job they do, implementers may choose to use them. >> > > Wishful thinking. NAT's didn't start with the blessing of IETF as I > recall. They just > happened. If the alternatives are too whacked out, history will repeat > itself. Exactly. This group can specify alternatives, and if they're good enough, they'll get used. I think NAT became popular because users didn't want to pay ISPs twice to connect two devices. That was a pretty strong incentive. I think the incentives are much weaker with IPv6 now that residential ISPs provide at least a /64, and in most cases much more. > Speaking to the title of this thread: has anybody actually > >> demonstrated such a thing end to end? It strikes me as >> Frankensteinian when you get all of the body parts bolted together. >> >> >> What thing exactly? Multiprefix multihoming? End-to-end connectivity in >> general? >> > > Yes, along with naming, security, prefix delegation across multiple > routers, and isp's > giving and withdrawing prefixes due to renumbering. I'm dubious that this > has happened > in real life with networks with people whose day job is to worry about > such things, and > I'd be astonished to hear such a thing has been shown to work on a home > network. > I don't know about naming and security, but renumbering works using address deprecation (that's been in the spec since forever), and since it's covered by RFC6204 and there are conformance tests for it, devices with the appropriate logo will support it. Support for prefix delegation across multiple routers is spotty, and there's no way to make it work in arbitrary topologies, but for what it's worth, I run it at home and it does work (my operator-provided CPE supports DHCPv6 PD and all I needed to do was plug in an IPv6-capable CPE). source+destination based routing has been demonstrated to work.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
