Re: FW: AAAA/A6

[[e-mail]]

>A6 wasn't originated by the DNS community, it was a response to the IPv6
>community's desire to push their rapid/continuous renumbering requirement
>into DNS rather than having to invent new support protocols in IPv6 itself.
>
>Therefore if the IPv6 community withdraws its rapid/continuous renumbering
>requirement then the DNS community will absolutely withdraw its A6 proposal.
>I do not consider this likely, and moreover, while I'm not a direct
>participant in the IPv6 community, I think that rapid/continuous renumbering
>is the only thing that makes IPv6 worth deploying.

	if this is the case, ipngwg would need to supply the requirement to
	renumbering (like frequency, network size, whether it covers multiple
	admin boundary or not, whatever).  i have never seen such document.

>> 	i believe our network is already large enough, and i'm happy with AAAA.
>in contrast, i believe that IPv6 is not worth its deployment cost, not even
>in a testbed, unless we deploy (or test) the rapid/continuous renumbering
>features.

	(this is outside of the topic, i guess)  deployment cost is high
	partly because there are too fancy proposals thrown into it.  we,
	those who are trying hard to deploy IPv6 sooner, are trying to seek
	the ways to make it really work.  i believe this A6/AAAA debate, as
	well as our tests of IPv6 router renumbering protocol, are part of
	the effort.

itojun


to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.