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

Mon Nov 22 18:29:55 UTC 2004

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:

> > HIP: Host Identity Protocol:
> > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html
> 
> this level of complexity seems a little high for anything to be universal.
> (let me put it this way: A6/DNAME was shot down because of complexity, and
> it was simpler than this.)

1. A6/DNAME were great idea, I'm really disappointed they are not going
   forward...

2. Level of complexity is a very relative thing. To me the important is
   not to overwhelm any single protocol and allow clear separation between
   different levels.. In that sense if we actually are able to create new
   "host identity" layer we can solve the problem with not only dynamicly
   changing ip addresses but with simplified multihoming for end-user
   sites. What is bad however is that IETF instead of pursuing it as
   one effort has several of them including MULTI6, HIP, etc.

   BTW - regarding why these effots while being ip-independet would not
   work for Ipv6, the reason is addressing. We need new kind of addresses
   and they all require "id" that TCP can use for establishing connection
   and that ID can not be limited to 32 bit so we end up considering reusing
   part of IPv6 space for this new kind of "non-ip" addresses. I think
   given large amount of available IPv6 space that is acceptable - if we
   cut the pool to 1/4 we'd still have enough.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net