In message <CAEmG1=r7udestcqfjiqro_vt1hfr_t4oytw5fd-ed1atexp...@mail.gmail.com>, Matthew Petach writes: > --089e013a14fa48fd43050593df5a > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In message <[email protected]>, Owen DeLong > > writes: > > > > > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 02:43 , Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Let me address a few points that were brought up by different people. > > > > > > > > Renumbering: > > > > > > > > We had great plans for making renumbering easy in the early days of > > IPv6. Remember A6 records and bit > > > labels in the DNS? But none of that went anywhere. The problem isn't so > > much that we can't push a prefi > > > x down the network or update the DNS (although both of these still have > > challenges associated with them > > > ), but that addresses tend to get hardcoded all over the place, starting > > with firewalls all the way up > > > to homegrown applications. I don't think renumbering addresses this > > issue, although it could help steer > > > some smaller organizations away from PI. > > > > > > They never went anywhere because they focused on solving the easy part > > of the renumbering problem while > > > utterly and completely ignoring the hard part. > > > > > > Easy part: Changing your stuff. > > > Hard part: Updating all of the prefix lists, filters, firewall rules, > > VPN configurations, and other con > > > figuration elements in systems not under your control that contain your > > prefixes (partner VPNs, peer ro > > > uters, etc.). > > > > Owen this a collective response to the list. > > > > Not all that hard at all. Just send signed update requests. I did > > that with email over a decade ago. You just have to have something > > listening for them that verifies the signature and updates the > > system. > > > > Write a draft "Remote Firewall Update Request Protocol" and submit > > it. > > > > The alternative is stop worrying about the remote address and use > > security at the application layer. > > > > Or complain to your vendor that you can't use a hostname in the > > configuration file element. In many cases it doesn't require > > anything more than looking up a address in the DNS before the > > operation. Yes, I need to fix the masters clause in named to support > > this. We already do something similar for NOTIFY messages so it > > is possible to do this. > > > > For masters clauses there is a bootstrap problem to deal with but > > it is not impossible. Just sending periodic NOTIFY messages will > > work. Named has had support to do this for 1 1/2 decades now to > > allow for a a stealth master behind a dial on demand link. It would > > send a notify periodically. That would bring up the line. The > > slave would refresh and transfer if required. When that was complete > > the idle timer on link would drop it. > > > > This just used standard signalling designed by the IETF in a different > > way. > > > > Stop expecting someone else to *find* and fix these issues for you. > > You know what the issues are. Ask your vendors to fix them. If > > they need to co-ordinate they should know where to go to do it. > > > > Or, y'know, we could just get PI space, > multihome via BGP, and save ourselves > all that headache... > > ...just sayin'... > > Matt
And when we can support 40 billion routes, PI becomes a viable solution. Yes, this is the level that PI needs to be able to scale to for it to be a actual solution. Yes, mutiple routes for every single person on the planet. Until then we need to work towards making renumbering work so PI isn't needed. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
