On 11/05/2012 09:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> * 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.
Huh? :-) If you generate your addresses according to traditional SLAAC, and the advertised autoconf pprefix is always the same, where's the renumbering? >> * 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. The point is, if you're updating the DNS entiries anyway, why would you care about the special magic (i.e., tokenized IIDS)? -- the meat seems to the in the renumbering case. > 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. I'd set the DNS aside -- at least this I-D doesn't mention any mechanism to notify the DNS of the updated *prefix* (and you probably wouldn't want that, anyway). Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
