Perhaps it would be easier without the PTR RR? Then renumbering becomes a (possibly dynamic) update to the forward name. Sounds pretty easy... Regarding the second problem, Novell invented such a scheme many years ago. It gave the host a separate network number and address from those of the interfaces. We approximate this scheme today in IPv4 using loopback interfaces, frequently with /32 masks. In this scheme, the interface addresses are just part of the path to the host, but not actually the host itself. --Dean On 22 Apr 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > > The rhetoric would have us believe that frequent renumbering with IPv6 > > is seamless and effortless. I don't personally buy that, but there are > > some assumptions there that perhaps should be challenged more directly > > rather than in this oblique fashion. > > yesterday we had to change an AAAA RR and PTR RR because one of our > servers got a new GigE interface to replace the old FastE. no part > of ipv6 renumbers seamlessly, from where i sit. > > > If we accept the premise that frequent renumbering in IPv6 is not > > seamless and is in fact painful and worth avoiding, then rather than > > hiding the source of the pain behind a NAT perhaps we should try to > > eliminate it: find a mechanism which facilitates pervasive multi-homing > > with some stable view of layer-3 addressing from the layer above, > > across re-homing events. > > we did. it was called A6. now we're apparently on to something else, > like for example nothing, or for example pretending it's not a problem > after all. > -- > Paul Vixie > >