What you miss in IPv6.... (Was: Re: Fw: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Thu Apr 7 11:37:05 CEST 2005
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 21:10 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Michael Dillon: > > > If RIPE really and truly believes that IPv6 will become > > the future core protocol of the public Internet, then RIPE > > should allocate an IPv6 /32 to every RIPE member who has > > PI addresses. > > No, if everyone believed that IPv6 is the future, policies would not > matter much, and there would be little fighting. Everyone would jump > through almost any hoop to get what they think they need. 8-) > > But this is not the case. I don't follow the v6 wars closely, but it > appears that several promised improvements over v4 won't be delivered > (look at the A6/bitlabel/DNAME deprecation, or even the protocol > design optimized for forwarding implementations which now are being > phased out). A6 could cause a long chain of servers to be asked where 1 lookup is enough for normal reverse queries. Also things as signing would become a large Bitlabel is just a different way of writing down reverses, which btw would be incompatible with A6. DNAME exists and is being used. It is sort of a Domain CNAME :) How else did you think I aliased ip6.int to ip6.arpa for silly slow people who do not upgrade their DNS resolvers. The "protocol design optimized for forwarding implementations". You can be referring to a couple of things here, though I can tell you that the header structure is aligned and there is no checksumming anymore, as the hardware layer usually already does that. This speeds IPv6 up already by a couple of factors compared to IPv4, even though one has to look at a 128bit address instead of a IPv4 one. Anything else? Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20050407/e130647b/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): Fw: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]