On 05/11/2012 21:56, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Tim,
>
> On 11/05/2012 11:18 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Is there interest in promoting this idea further, and importantly any
>> IPR preventing doing so? Or is there reluctance from admins to rely on
>> RAs to configure a full server IPv6 address?
>
> I've gone through the I-D, and found it valuable. Here are some
> comments/questions:
>
> * It looks like the ultimate goal of these tokenized addresses is that
> of renumbering? Am I right? This is pointed out in the abstract, but
> doesn't seem to be so clear form the Intro.
As Fred Baker has pointed out in the 6renum context, there is only a small
difference between "renumbering" and "numbering", and every network gets
numbered at least once in its life, and more often if powered off and on again.
> * When it comes to servers, I guess they'd nevertheless need to update
> the corresponding DNS entries... So this proposal seems to be more
> targetted at, e.g., ACLs?
If dynamic DNS update is in use, there would be no manual action needed.
Indeed, a configuration system could know that <prefix-N><token-M> is
the address for a given server, and everything including the AAAA record
could be parameterised on that basis.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
