Can anyone tell me if the document he linked is work reading? I am currently connected to an IPv6 only network and can't get to it.
Thank you, - Nich Warren > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM > To: Mark Andrews > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 Irony. > > 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=D2341B890A > D12BFE.E857D5F645C75AE5.4D4702B0C3E38B35.4D4702B0C3E38B35&CFID=723424660&C > FTOKEN=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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
