Subject: RE: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:47:16 -0700

I for one believe that we should assume rapid renumbering as a feature
of IPv6. The argument for that is the classic "fire escape" analogy. If
you don't practice frequent exercises, you find one the day of the
actual fire that a clutter of boxes blocks the escape. If we want to be
able to renumber when needed, then we should assume that we will
renumber frequently.

Note however that the window of opportunity is closing fast. In the
absence of a strong endorsement of A6, we will start deploying stacks
that only do AAAA. Once millions of these have shipped, the issue will
be moot.

-- Christian Huitema 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Austein [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:00 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Draft Minutes for IPng Interim Meeting
> 
> The basic problem is that neither the IPv6 community nor the DNS
> community has reached a clear consensus on whether the extra features
> of A6 over AAAA are worth the extra cost.  That's not a euphemism for
> "have decided that they're not", I really mean that we have people
> advocating each side in each group and have not answered the question.
> 
> So we attempted to approach the question from the angle of "what does
> IPv6 need the DNS to do?"  Since that question also appears to be a
> potential rathole, we tried to focus on the specific areas in which A6
> would allow us to do things that can't be done with just AAAA and some
> preprocessing during zone file generation.
> 
> All the cases we thought of that would justify A6 appeared to boil
> down to situations where the DNS data would have to change so fast
> that it isn't practical to update the DNS that quickly (eg, rapid
> renumbering, or GSE-like routing).
> 
> So the question to the IPv6 WGs is: is IPv6 going to be doing these
> things?  If so, AAAA probably is not sufficient, and A6 may be the
> answer.  If not, AAAA may or may not be sufficient, but the new
> features that A6 provides don't appear to be justified by IPv6's
> requirements.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 19:40:02 -0700

> of IPv6.

great!  how does it work?  not broad desires, but the devilish details
please.

as i participated in what was possibly the largest renumbering exercise
ever conducted O(10^4) *sites*, many of them non-trivial and some rather
large, i am quite interested in this.  

but i am also quite sceptical whether rapid renumbering is really supported
in v6.  steve d et al. seem less glib about it.

randy

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:38:23 -0400 (EDT)

Christian,

Excellent point sir.  In fact the rate of deployment is increasing right
now.  The curve is at at initial slope which is TBD but the market will
not wait for us to discuss this for two years and deploy AAAA.

/jim