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

Sat Nov 20 22:14:01 UTC 2004

On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 08:45:34PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> the second.  we'd have built a v6 bastion network and put our public
> services there and done some kind of overlay thing.  for things like my
> desktop, we'd've stuck with ipv4, or we'd've pirated some "site local" ipv6
> space.  there is no possibility that any enterprise where i am responsible
> for planning or design will ever run PA addresses out to the desktop -- it
> makes multihoming impossible, which would leave me at the mercy of a single
> provider's uptime, and a single provider's pricing.  no, no, no, and again
> i say, "no, that will not be done on my watch."

Perhaps it is time to replace TCP with SCTP, where multihoming is not
incompatible with PA addressing.  If done as a socket shim, so applications
don't have to be aware of it unless they want to be, it would appear to
solve all of these problems.

How much would it add to the pain of the v4-v6 transition, to just bite
the bullet and do tcp-sctp at the same time?  I'd sure rather be a
network troubleshooter going through that than living with NAT forever.

-- 
Barney Wolff         http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.