Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-savola-ipv6-127-prefixlen-00.txt (fwd)

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:05:39 -0800

kre,

> The question is who otherwise provides the address space? And then
> what address space I provide to those who connect to my house, and
> what address space they provide others who connect to them.

Agree.

> Please do remember that while multiple layers of connectivity today
> might be silly, as much of it is implemented out of ancient slow
> technology, there's no reason this has to continue into the future
> - we should certainly be planning for everyone to have high bandwidth
> low delay paths available. In that environment, there's a strong
> incentive for multiple orgs/people to group together, and between
> them buy a bigger pipe, as bandwidth costs are almost never linear.

Agree again.

>> What I think the setup should be is:
>> 1. get a /48 for your home. Subnet at will.
> who issus that /48?   The university's ISP isn't going to, they've
> never heard of me.

This is wrong. If the university is in the ISP business, they should
get a /35 or a /29.

> And in that case, they're not going to be providing any /48's to me.

You keep trying to break RFC 2373 to solve problems that have been
caused by people that have not done things right to begin with.
It is ok for a university to get a /48 for staff/internal stuff.
It is not ok to try to run an ISP with a /48. Period.

Trying to subnet a /64 because your ISP is trying to run their
business out of a /48 is not a realistic solution. Talk to your ISP
and tell them to do things right and get a /35 or a /29.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 12:14:01 +0700

Date:        Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:05:39 -0800
    From:        "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | This is wrong. If the university is in the ISP business, they should
  | get a /35 or a /29.

They're not.

  | You keep trying to break RFC 2373 to solve problems that have been
  | caused by people that have not done things right to begin with.

It is this notion that there is a "right" that I am opposed to.
There are lots of acceptable ways to operate, and all of them
should be permitted.   Ans it wasn't I who "broke" 2373, it is broken
as it is written.

  | It is not ok to try to run an ISP with a /48. Period.

Buit there (aside from marketing speak) is no distinction between
something that is an ISP and something that is not.   That's the
point I am trying to make.   Anyone and everyone can connect others.
Or they should be able to.   We shouldn't be even considering setting
up an environment where connections are only permitetd to be made to
the priveleged few who have /35's - or the answer will have to be that
everyone will simply go request a /35 instead of a /48.

Stop trying to label people/organisations into categories.  Address
space blocks outght to be allocated based upon the number of sub-addresses
that need to be allocated, not upon some label.   If I have just
a couple to allocate, and I am prepared to live with the consequences,
then subnetting a /64 should work just fine.

kre

---

From: Abdul Basit <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:06:34 -0600 (CST)

Hi,

 Just want to know that if its possible to dynamically update
dns if we are assigning ipv6 addresses dynamically by router
advertisements(for e.g rtdavd or zebra that finally assignes
a EUI64+ compaitable ipv6 address) kinda like DHCP mechanism.
DHCP has a support for dynamic dns updates though ..
so want to know about it in ipv6..

thanks
-basit

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:34:45 -0800

You are asking an implementation specific question. There is nothing in
either mechanism specifically targeting DDNS updates, but you will
likely find products that do update dns whichever mechanism gets used.
One design assumption of RA based auto-config was that nodes would most
likely register themselves using DDNS, but with RFC3041 auto-config
addresses, that is counter to the goal of anonymity.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Abdul Basit
> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 1:07 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: dynamic dns update / rtdavd
>
>
>
> Hi,
>