IPv6 Irony.

Thu Oct 22 15:15:29 UTC 2015

Couldn't tell you:

An error occurred while processing your request.

Reference #50.b301e78e.1445526611.3125864 

Masataka: Is there an alt link?  It sounds like it could be an interesting 
read.

-- 
Hugo

hugo at slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on textsecure & redphone)

On Thu 2015-Oct-22 12:34:07 +0000, Nicholas Warren <nwarren at barryelectric.com> wrote:

>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: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20151022/41deeff7/attachment.sig>