A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Sun Nov 28 18:51:44 UTC 2004
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the property of a6/dname that wasn't widely understood was its intrinsic
> multihoming support. the idea was that you could go from N upstreams to
> N+1 (or N-1) merely by adding/deleting DNAME RRs. so if you wanted to
> switch from ISP1 to ISP2 you'd start by adding a connection to ISP2, then
> add a DNAME for ISP2, then delete the DNAME for ISP1, then disconnect ISP1.
>
> the DNAME was expected to be inside your own zone. presto, no lock-in.
> my theory at the time, bitter and twisted i admit, was that we had too
> many ISP employees in positions of power inside IETF, and that A6/DNAME
> was seen as shifting too much power to the endsystems. i've since learned
> that it was just another case of FID (fear, ignorance, and doubt).
[...]
Isn't about the same achievable with about two or three lines of
scripting (or a new zone parsing option for bind ;) with a lot less
protocol complexity?
As you note, A6/DNAME wasn't a panacea. A lot additional stuff is
needed to achieve the goal. It seems to me that actually the A6/DNAME
part is a relatively simple one to achieve using current mechanisms.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the NANOG
mailing list