I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

S.P.Zeidler spz at serpens.de
Sun Sep 26 22:26:49 CEST 2010


Thus wrote Fred Baker (fred at cisco.com):

> OK, so it sounds like Michaels comment was that the IETF has actively make it hard to deploy IPv6. The response is "Renumbering still needs work", and the upshot of the discussion in RFC 4192 ("renumbering a network without a flag day") is that the things that make renumbering hard are the places where people take shortcuts with things magically knowing addresses instead of using names, or put addresses into configuration files.
>     interface foo
>        ipv6 address 2001:0db8::1/32
> So the complaint is that the IETF has not found a cure for human stupidity/laziness or for the need to configure routers? Or is there another complaint?
> I'm serious. If the IETF has actively gotten in the way, there's something we need to fix. If it's something that neither the operators nor the IETF can solve, that's an unfair response.

No NAT at present is my greatest problem.

I am currently in charge of a network that is multihomed in v4 using PA
spaces from 5 different uplinks.

Different uplinks are supposed to carry traffic to different destinations,
and I need to be able to failover fairly quickly if one link goes down.

For IPv6, at present, I'll have to pray that all the hosts in my network
actually are RFC4191 type C hosts and don't collect too many bugs around
it, not now and not with any future update, where I don't have control
over when they update (or to what). Instead of having a routing decision
made at the pair of inner firewalls, I get a zoo that hopefully will
get it right. If they don't, they'll use the wrong originating prefix
and the communication will die at the next filtering router, and I will
have no ends of fun.

If I could get the wish fairy to attend, I'd get RFC1493 addresses
internally, and a stateless prefix NAT of whatever kind by the
firewalls that lets the firewalls make sure that routing works as
it should. (ILNP sounds fine but has the drawback that it only allows
locator changes when the responder does ILNP too).

spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list