IPv6 Irony.

Thu Oct 22 12:34:07 UTC 2015

Worth*

Thank you,
- Nich Warren


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM
> To: Masataka Ohta
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: IPv6 Irony.
> 
> 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-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
> > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM
> > To: Mark Andrews
> > Cc: nanog at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4845 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20151022/20480e9a/attachment.bin>