On 7/24/07, Durand, Alain <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Chad Oleary Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:02 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: An Internet IPv6 Transition Plan
Personally, I see v6 as something that needed and desired by the certain groups. However, when looking at the enterprise, for example, better solutions are needed for things like multi-homing, last I checked.
It is just the same multi-homing as v4. No better for sure.
Perhaps the biggest challenge, IMO, in this much more dynamic network, is DNS. How do I (or my new vendor) readdress every node at my site, and actually know what device has what address? rtadvd doesn't do DNS updates. DHCPv6 doesn't even hand out addresses.
This is not correct. DHCPv6 does hand out addresses. The status of DHCPv6 implemenations has improved dramatically over what it was 12-18 months ago. See the article in the IETF journal about the DHCPv6 bake-off we did at RIPE-NCC last March.
DNSSEC comes to mind, but that's a whole different story. Add, since a host can have many preferred addresses, which to use? How do deprecated addresses get withdrawn from DNS?
This is a very good point. Having multiple addresses per interface introduce a lot a complexity that is not well understood today. However, nothing forces you there. If you do not run ULA, but run PA or PI space, you can very well manage only one v6 address per interface.
- Alain.
Ok, thank you for the technical corrections. However, what I'm trying to understand is why the motivation to rapidly go from v4 to v6 only? What are the factors I'm missing in operating v4/v6 combined for some time? Chad