who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Fri Nov 19 20:03:20 UTC 2004

kloch at gurunet.net ("Kevin Loch") writes:

> FWIW, I have submitted an I-D for a method that does not require overlay
> prefixes, extra routing table entries or globally unique AS's:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-loch-multi6-alternate-path-encoding-01.txt

either of these limitations...

   o  A maximum of two alternate networks (for a total of three
      networks) can be encoded on a single unicast address.
   o  Renumbering when changing networks is not eliminated and is
      actually made worse because changing any of the networks requires
      renumbering.  Worse yet, even changing the routing preference
      between the the networks requires renumbering.

...is fatal to this approach.

i still prefer A6/DNAME.  (dammit.)
-- 
Paul Vixie