[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[mcr at xdsinc.net]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>>>> "Leroy" == Leroy Ladyzhensky <leroy at emailsorting.com> writes:
    Leroy> so, way down the road, when the move to IPv6 why would they
    Leroy> number all their inside machines just because that's the
    Leroy> block their ISP handed to them? just to renumber when they
    Leroy> change to another ISP? 

    Leroy> it bad enough now with IPv4 when only their firewall and DNS
    Leroy> entries need to be changed when they get a new IP block from
    Leroy> an ISP... 

    Leroy> As much as I hate NAT ... you can beat it in this
    Leroy> situation...

  Yes, you can.

  In IPv6, it is strictly not uncommon for a host to have multiple IP
addresses.  So, you don't renumber the hosts or use NAT. You just let
them have an IP address from your ISP, if you have one.
  FURTHERMORE, shim6 will let you failover active connections from one
host to another without starting a new TCP connection.

  The problem is that, if you have a 1000 hosts, and they are on
multiple subnets (perhaps at multiple locations via VPNs or leased
lined, or ad-hoc wireless networks, or...), that you'd like to continue
to be able to address them even when your ISP is dead, etc. 

- -- 
Michael Richardson <mcr at xdsinc.net>
XDS Inc, Ottawa, ON             
Personal: http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/ 



  
  

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iQDVAwUBRumt4O0sRu40D6vCAQI/AAYAhXdPGMJFDHxFPidv8vlT9knBECKNRp70
pPF2+MDLRrI5nke8x0LBueN4Tgwsly0ccmv34xw3y11c/uxf0DjnMx6gB5DkU422
cuf/vNi3WTHiEUY7MKGQrsO7c4IXfOQrZNq2zzx7lNDjreOB4jFA9RrbWkPGNYIZ
U0bonIMRIXwqOfKfmLh2H0CjGTYgrxJVCUrbkuZ1bqWU/3PQyOfmEoilXOXP5sxj
txQaKUDN8+1QsKZzy51VgK8jBgF64JR9
=F8uM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----