Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



--On Thursday, 29 January, 2004 14:34 +0900 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

...
JCK> Yes.  And it may speak to the IETF's sense of priorities
that JCK> the efforts to which you refer are predominantly
going into the  JCK> much more complex and long-term problem,
rather than the one  JCK> that is presumably easier to solve
and higher leverage.

I think a simple version of what you want is already available
and has been for many years, namely multiple A records in the
DNS.

(OK.  Let's see you respond to _that_ and claim that the
response only has picks at nits... Hah!)

Of course, multiple A records works, is out there, and have worked for years. But they worked better before we introduced routers (i.e., when the hosts with multiple A records really had interfaces on different networks). Today, it effectively implies having multiple addresses on an interface and multiple "local" address prefixes running around on the same physical LAN segment. IPv4 was not designed to work well in that environment and, with at least some implementations that are arguably still conforming, it has some unfortunate side effects, such as not really knowing which addresses are local to you and which aren't, at least without setting up local routing tables that are well beyond the capabilities of the typical user. The claim has been made that IPv6 _is_ designed to work in that environment, for whatever that claim may be worth.


Perhaps more important, as Noel points out, it doesn't scale very well, at least in terms of the routing fabric. And, as I tried to point out, address preservation policies have had trickle-down effects that make it impractical for small enterprises.

Nits? Probably not.

  best,
   john



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]