Dan Kolis wrote: > Well, this makes me feel better and there is certainly a lot of good > thinking in the above. I wonder, though since I know almost > nothing about > IPNG whether maybe its handled there better. DNS is orthogonal to IPv6, but absolutely required to avoid having to type addresses that look like:: 1234:5678:9abc:def0:1234:5678:9abc:def0 It does seem a bit strange that you are working on a new residential gateway, but haven't looked at IPv6... ;) > > It seems to me for troubleshooting, its awefully handy to > think of the DNS > as more or less static. If the connection that used to be > somebody's WWW > pointing to there childrens playground is instead the > sex-with-goats hotline > for 20 minutes, its harder to troubleshoot if everything is dynamic. Granted, and one of the advantages of IPv6 is that the ISP *could* choose to statically allocate a prefix to a customer. The mindset for doing that today is hard to get across, since everyone is in strong conservation mode, but it has been shown there are enough /48's in the current PA prefix space to allocate half-a-dozen to everyone that is expected to be alive 70 years from now, so statically allocating one to a household in the short term should not be as big a deal as some are making it out to be. > > I'm arguing both sides clearly becuase it a subtle tradeoff. > The scalability > thing is a good point. > > In my implementation, every house it going to have a WWW > server, some with > fixed Ip's some just pointed to by a corperate resource, some an > intentionally obscure port and (maybe dynamic) DHCP assigned IP, etc. Just make sure you put IPv6 support in it, and don't preclude the concept of a game-console behind it registering for peer-to-peer gaming. > > I think TOny is perceiving the DNS process as just another > service, not a > framework per se. DNS is a service, just like forwarding packets is a service. There are technical components that have to be right for the service to work, but there is no reason those components have to be as complex as they are today. > > But with the name resolution Internet board, etc, it has a quasi-legal > status already. > > I guess among other things I don't quite get is why if an ISP > buys an IP for > $0.35 they rerent if for ten times that, per month. Simply because they can, due to the scarceness of the resource. Fortunately with IPv6, there is no address scarcity. > > I'm rambling. Its a fun topic though. > > Regs to all > Dan > >