Mark Andrews wrote: >>> Customer support, especially network troubleshootings and so on... >> >> Customer support for IPv6 costs a lot, at least because of: >> >> 1) Unnecessarily lengthy IP addresses, not recognized by most, if not >> all, customers >> >> 2) Lack of so promised automatic renumbering > > Upgrade the vendors. Nodes already renumber themselves automatically > when a new prefix appears.
Can the nodes treat multiple prefixes on multiple (virtual) interfaces for smooth ISP handover? > Nodes can update their addresses in the DNS if the want to securely > using DNS UPDATE and TSIG / SIG(0). How much is the customer support cost for the service? > This isn't rocket science. Firewall vendors could supply tools to > allow nodes to update their addresses in the firewall. They could > even co-ordinate through a standards body. It isn't that hard to > take names, turn them into addresses and push out new firewall rules > on demand as address associated with those names change. As I and my colleague developed protocol suites to automatically renumber multihomed hosts and routers The Basic Procedures of Hierarchical Automatic Locator Number Allocation Protocol HANA http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2090000/2089037/p124-kenji.pdf?ip=131.112.32.134&id=2089037&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&key=D2341B890AD12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&CFTOKEN=36506659&__acm__=1445495785_e3533480d8843be13ab34593a1faf194 which is now extended for DNS update including glue, I know it is doable. But, as it is a lot more simpler to do so with IPv4 with NAT, 48 bit address space by NAT is large enough and NAT can enjoy end to end transparency, I see no point to use IPv6 here. Automatic renumbering of IPv6 *WAS* promising, because it was not necessary to replace existing IPv4-only boxes. Masataka Ohta
