Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 03:17:14PM +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> Brian Candler wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 12:36:38AM -0800, Joe wrote: >>>> whats sad is how many people will never let go of NAT after they migrate >>>> to ipv6. >>> It's not sad; for many people it would be essential. How would you like >> your >>> 48-bit MAC address to become a permanent cookie, following you about >>> whenever you access the Internet? >> *sigh* read RFC3041 to 'solve' that part and of course dhcpv6 exists and >> everything else you have in IPv4. >> > > Oh glory a new RFC fixing something that should not have been an issue. > IPv6 starts to be like VoIP a huge collection of junk RFC.
A 6 years old RFC is new? Adding to it that it usually takes 2-4 years for it to become an RFC as it is a draft before that, minimum of 8 years is new in the Internet, wow ;) Some people didn't even have Internet 8 years ago. Well to address your concern actually a bit better, Windows users get it on per default. You, as a clever user, probably know how to manually change your address. Or the MAC address of course ;) BTW: IPv6 is not a standard yet... See http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org And of course there are much more effective ways to track. Ever logged in to MSN/hotmail/gmail/google/linkedin/.... any place you provide that cookie or re-login you are tracked. And you have no idea if various hosters coordinate and share their tracking data. [..RIR's doing IPv6 PI..] > > Not in Europe. RIPE will not give away PI space. This is actually a > religious problem with the IPv6 belivers that still think that 10'000 IPv6 > routes will cover the world. Well, like democracy, Americans vote for Bush, is that the right thing? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but still it is the opinion of the majority. There are proposals at RIPE and they are moving forward. The reasoning behind not allowing IPv6 PI is simply to have a barrier for routing table explosion, but that is a problem that has to be solved differently. Anybody should be able to get address space though. IMHO organizations that can demonstrate a need for address space and are willing to spend some time and cash on it should be able to get it. >> And otherwise read RFC4193 to get your unique local goo for free. >> > > And another RFC that nobody cares about. Good to know that I am nobody and all those large corporations that asked for it are nobodies too. Loads of people do find it useful. I guess that leaves you ;) One doesn't have to use it, but it is there for people to use. [..] >> The first three bits (2000::/3 ;)... [..] > Good that we still have a few bits left in the IP version header... Those 3 bits are in the IP address. The version header has 4 bits and only 50% is left of the combinations it makes up: http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers >> Of course if you have better ideas, you can always bring it up on the >> various RIR forums. >> > > They did not listen when people mentionend issues about IPv6 while they > were working on the initial standard so why should they now. Did you make a formal proposal!? Did you even contribute to the threads about it with reasoning and structured arguments? If you didn't then indeed, they can't listen, as you are not saying anything. [..] > The /64 boundery is the most supid thing ever invented. In the end of > those 128-bit only half of them are usable. Quite true, but you can ignore the boundary for global unicast addresses. Link-locals will still use them but that doesn't hurt much. DHCPv6 or static can be used for the rest. [..] >>> 1. ROUTING TABLE EXPLOSION >> IPv6 is an ADDRESSING system, it has nothing (not much at least) to do >> with routing. BGP/ISIS/OSPF are ROUTING systems. Subscribe to >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you want to solve that problem. >> > > Routing depends on the addressing system. Getting the addressing system > wrong results in increased pain for routing. IPv6 had a chance to fix the > current issues with routing table explosion and the fact that longest > prefix matches need way more CPU cycles than simple CAM lookup need. So lets assume that we give everybody who wants a IPv6 "PI" block, sized /32 so that everybody has shiteloads of address space. That means 2^(32-3) = 2^29 routing entries. Ouch. Enjoy building your TCAM tables, go buy memory first ;) Also note that one will be effectively routing IPv6 with IPv4, guess why Juniper doesn't provide 6to4, ah as they can't do that in hardware. > Ever wondered why a cheapo switch works at wirespeed while most router > fail to do that... Ever wondered why a cheapo switch doesn't switch more than 2048 MAC addresses and when it's CAM table is full it goes into 'hub' mode? >>> 2. THE RENUMBERING PROBLEM >> Impossible to solve as well documented by the IETF. The second there is >> an external factor (eg a place where you have to put your IP in a remote >> firewall or DNS server) this ain't easy any more. >> > > On of the goals of IPv6 was to make renumbering painless. They failed and > had to realize that it is not so easy. Renumbering was one central pillar > in the IPv6 building. As said before the IPv6 routing table should not > grow over 10'000 routes -- at least that was the intention. Because of > that no PI space was allowed and renumbering was "invented". They tried and failed indeed. As renumbering was a goal back then and they found along the way when companies started to merge RFC1918 networks which required renumbering that it is mostly impossible due to external parties having your numbers. Locally renumbering goes fine as long as it is in your own hands it works all quite fine. The cases that really need it though have external places where their numbers are stored. No way around it. >> Valid argument, but the same for IPv4 and IPX and any other. >> > > Renumbering of IPX is easy. Just change the 32bit network address on your > edge router and your done. That network address is a part of the routing topology, not of the endpoint address of the host. It's more analogous to changing AS numbers than anything else. >> Btw, phone numbers are analogous to DNS, not to IP addresses. >> >>> 4. ADDRESS DEPLETION >> Your arguments are bullshit, and you know it. >> > > The biggest part of the IPv6 address space is not usable. Instead of a /24 > as smallest routable network for IPv4, IPv6 rised it to /48. The rest of > the 128-bits is just waste of memory. You only address networks and not hosts? There are vendors that only look at the first 48 bits actually of any IPv6 address. If the match is longer they offload it to a second chip. Design issues, nothing else. [..] >>> 7. FALSE ROUTES AND INSTABILITY >> Again, Routing != Addressing. SBGP is one part of the solution for this >> btw. Good monitoring systems like RIS and GRH is the other. >> > > SBGP will never work and will be the major cause for routing instabilities. Why will it never work and why will it be a major cause for routing instabilities? The only factor in it getting to work is like IPv6: if the gross of the providers check it, it will work. Fortunately there are already a couple of ISP's testing this out and it will come sooner or later. >>> 12. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS CAUSED BY IPV6 >> 12.5 Please ask your granny to remember your telephone number (10 >> digits) or the IP address of www.google.com, oh yeah that changes now >> and then. Use DNS. Simple. > > Especially if your DNS is down or unreachable. The NOC will suffer most > and the result is longer down times. If your DNS is down people can't type www.google.com anyway. See the picture? :) Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
