% In short, the A6 design trades off some additional design complexity for
% a lesser management load and a lesser use of DNS resource when either
% renumbering or multi-homing are frequent.
%
% -- Christian Huitema
What has changed is some empirical, operational experience
with A6/DNAME records. The expectation that the mgmt load
would be less appears to be based on the premise that the
overall "clue" factor would rise. What has occured is that
the clue factor is (still) tending flat, with a rising
population. The tools are -NOT- in place to ease the administrative
complexities, (just where are my offsets anyway?) and the
encoding methods are fairly non-obvious to the normal
operational crowd. While the design may be conceptually
elegant, the barriers to adoption are looking -very- high.
(where oh where is a simple DNAME replacement for:
%dig -x 192.168.10.10
'cause
%dig -x 3ffe:1::c620:242
fails. Note that I can "cut" the v6 address from my
ifconfig. But now, w/o my useful -x flag, I'm stuck
with this:
%dig 2.4.2.0.2.6.c.0.0.(yes, you need them all).1.e.f.f.3.ip6.int
Not at all operationally friendly.
The DNAME & A6 wigets are just to wierd to type in.
Your mileage may vary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
