Perhaps it would be easier without the PTR RR?
Then renumbering becomes a (possibly dynamic) update to the forward name.
Sounds pretty easy...
Regarding the second problem, Novell invented such a scheme many years
ago. It gave the host a separate network number and address from those of
the interfaces. We approximate this scheme today in IPv4 using loopback
interfaces, frequently with /32 masks. In this scheme, the interface
addresses are just part of the path to the host, but not actually the host
itself.
--Dean
On 22 Apr 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
The rhetoric would have us believe that frequent renumbering with IPv6
is seamless and effortless. I don't personally buy that, but there are
some assumptions there that perhaps should be challenged more directly
rather than in this oblique fashion.
yesterday we had to change an AAAA RR and PTR RR because one of our
servers got a new GigE interface to replace the old FastE. no part
of ipv6 renumbers seamlessly, from where i sit.
If we accept the premise that frequent renumbering in IPv6 is not
seamless and is in fact painful and worth avoiding, then rather than
hiding the source of the pain behind a NAT perhaps we should try to
eliminate it: find a mechanism which facilitates pervasive multi-homing
with some stable view of layer-3 addressing from the layer above,
across re-homing events.
we did. it was called A6. now we're apparently on to something else,
like for example nothing, or for example pretending it's not a problem
after all.
--
Paul Vixie