Worth* Thank you, - Nich Warren
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Warren Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 7:26 AM To: Masataka Ohta Cc: nanog@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@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Masataka Ohta Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 1:43 AM To: Mark Andrews Cc: nanog@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