from what we have exchanged, the only things we do not agree with each
other are:
- you do not believe IPv4/v6 mixed environment would work, or too tough
to make it work that it is not justifiable. also you see some problem
in nodes with multiple addresses.
- i do believe it would work ok
> > if you are not under NDA, could you please be more specific? source
> > code, RFC/draft for the protocol, whatever? i'm getting tired of this
> > guessing games.
> >
> what do you want me to do, describe in detail every distributed
> application that I've ever worked with? I'm not talking about any
> specific application, I'm generalizing from several applications that
> I've worked with and/or am otherwise familiar with.
when you generalize things you might have missed some of the details,
so if you could please send me pointers to details (privately).
> > once you run ALG (which i guess you do not like) IPv6-to-IPv4 or
> > IPv4-to-
> > IPv6 looks much like SMTP relaying.
> true. ALGs are okay for applications that have explicit intermediaries,
> like SMTP. I don't like ALGs so much when they're used as interception
> proxies. sometimes they work okay, sometimes not.
yup.
> > do not underestimate my paranoid-ness, i'm an OpenBSD developer
> somehow, I think this should be on a t-shirt, or a bumper sticker. :)
heh, maybe.
> agree with all of those. but it sounds like you're close to arguing
> that because there are so many other things that can screw with DNS,
> it's okay for getaddrinfo() to return bogus results too.
i did not say that. what i was trying to say are below:
- you said that you do not trust getaddrinfo/getnameinfo but you seem to
trust other DNS functions/responses.
- under what kind of condition would you trust DNS, and would you not?
- are you sure it is ok when you trust it?
> > ok, so you are basically worried about uRPF, performance difference,
> > and/or firewalling policy differences when you have multiple exit links.
> >
> it's not just multiple exit links, it's having multiple addresses per
> host for any number of reasons. (mobility, renumbering, the desire to
> have stable local addresses, and also the possibility of multiple active
> network interfaces)
note that "client machines with multiple IP address" has been a
common practice even for IPv4, more than 15 years at least. i had the
first laptop when i was in university, i ran 386BSD (4.4BSD) so that
makes it around 15 years ago.
mobility - i do not see your problem, maybe mobile-ip6 guys would
want to speak up
renumbering - multiple address DO help
stable local address - well, define "stable"
multiple active network interfaces - it is a common practice,
use MacOS X machines with wireless and ethernet and switch them
over time. TCP connection would not survive, which is a
problem,
but other than that, things are seamless (like browsers).
> > do not take it as a self-promotion, but my take on this is in RFC3178.
> >
> but things like RFC 3178 do help. if we can get back to the expectation
> that one address per host is the normal case, we'll make life much
> simpler for application writers.
the thing is, application writers does not really need to choose
addresses to be used, as long as you write a program/protocol spec
so that it does not embed IPv4/v6 addresses or DNS names. if you
embed it, you would want to use DNS names instead of IPv4/v6 addresses,
as you will want your application to work ok with the next protocol
that would be introduced after IPv6. i would not call it IPv8 :-P
> > so i can solve problem for Skype, so i guess i can solve problem for
> > your "distributed computation system". want to hire a consultant? :-P
> >
> I can solve it too, and have done so on a couple of occasions. but I
> don't pretend that it's easy to retro-fit every existing distributed
> application (or to build every new distributed application) to handle
> multiple realms. NATs have drastically raised the burden on
> applications by dividing the Internet up into multiple address realms;
> similarly, IPv4/IPv6 coexistence also divides the Internet up into
> multiple address realms. Thus a "mixed" IPv4/IPv6 network is almost as
> dysfunctional as a NATted IPv4 network.
ok, i can understand your concern, but we need to do it anyways.
unlike the introduction of IPv4, you cannot set a flag day, can you?
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
