Dan Kolis wrote:
Well, this makes me feel better and there is certainly a lot of good
thinking in the above. I wonder, though since I know almost
nothing about
IPNG whether maybe its handled there better.
DNS is orthogonal to IPv6, but absolutely required to avoid having to
type addresses that look like:: 1234:5678:9abc:def0:1234:5678:9abc:def0
It does seem a bit strange that you are working on a new residential
gateway, but haven't looked at IPv6... ;)
It seems to me for troubleshooting, its awefully handy to
think of the DNS
as more or less static. If the connection that used to be
somebody's WWW
pointing to there childrens playground is instead the
sex-with-goats hotline
for 20 minutes, its harder to troubleshoot if everything is dynamic.
Granted, and one of the advantages of IPv6 is that the ISP *could*
choose to statically allocate a prefix to a customer. The mindset for
doing that today is hard to get across, since everyone is in strong
conservation mode, but it has been shown there are enough /48's in the
current PA prefix space to allocate half-a-dozen to everyone that is
expected to be alive 70 years from now, so statically allocating one to
a household in the short term should not be as big a deal as some are
making it out to be.
I'm arguing both sides clearly becuase it a subtle tradeoff.
The scalability
thing is a good point.
In my implementation, every house it going to have a WWW
server, some with
fixed Ip's some just pointed to by a corperate resource, some an
intentionally obscure port and (maybe dynamic) DHCP assigned IP, etc.
Just make sure you put IPv6 support in it, and don't preclude the
concept of a game-console behind it registering for peer-to-peer gaming.
I think TOny is perceiving the DNS process as just another
service, not a
framework per se.
DNS is a service, just like forwarding packets is a service. There are
technical components that have to be right for the service to work, but
there is no reason those components have to be as complex as they are
today.
But with the name resolution Internet board, etc, it has a quasi-legal
status already.
I guess among other things I don't quite get is why if an ISP
buys an IP for
$0.35 they rerent if for ten times that, per month.
Simply because they can, due to the scarceness of the resource.
Fortunately with IPv6, there is no address scarcity.
I'm rambling. Its a fun topic though.
Regs to all
Dan