To:
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
CC:
"David R. Conrad" <david.conrad@nominum.com>, "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com, namedroppers@ops.ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com, dnsop@cafax.se
From:
Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 23:13:27 +0859 ()
In-Reply-To:
<200108081308.JAA12968@astro.cs.utk.edu> from Keith Moore at "Aug8, 2001 09:08:37 am"
Sender:
owner-dnsop@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: (ngtrans) Joint DNSEXT & NGTRANS summary
Keith; > > The only thing to do is to have an RFC for the organization to tell > > renumbering with A6 is as easy as with NAT. > > only thing is, it's not as easy with A6 as it is with NAT. It is. > if you use NATs to renumber, when you change prefixes the only thing > you change is the NAT. the NAT does translation of addresses within > external DNS queries and responses for you. all of your internal > routers, firewalls, hosts, applications, etc. stay the same. It is stupid if internal routers, firewalls, hosts, applications, etc. do not rely on DNS and use raw addresses. DNS does translation of addresses for all of your internal routers, firewalls, hosts, applications. However, the problem is that router autoconfiguration is a bad thing to do if we use DNS, regardless of whether we use renumbering on ISP change or not. > A6 only addresses one part of that. So, we should have router configuration mechanism where routers (and firewalls) automatically accept upper 48 bit of addresses but nothing more. > renumbering is a hard problem. Except for DNS glue, renumbering is trivially easy. Masataka Ohta