from what we have exchanged, the only things we do not agree with each
other are:
- you do not believe IPv4/v6 mixed environment would work, or too tough
to make it work that it is not justifiable. also you see some problem
in nodes with multiple addresses.
- i do believe it would work ok
if you are not under NDA, could you please be more specific? source
code, RFC/draft for the protocol, whatever? i'm getting tired of this
guessing games.
what do you want me to do, describe in detail every distributed
application that I've ever worked with? I'm not talking about any
specific application, I'm generalizing from several applications that
I've worked with and/or am otherwise familiar with.
when you generalize things you might have missed some of the details,
so if you could please send me pointers to details (privately).
once you run ALG (which i guess you do not like) IPv6-to-IPv4 or
IPv4-to-
IPv6 looks much like SMTP relaying.
true. ALGs are okay for applications that have explicit intermediaries,
like SMTP. I don't like ALGs so much when they're used as interception
proxies. sometimes they work okay, sometimes not.
yup.
do not underestimate my paranoid-ness, i'm an OpenBSD developer
somehow, I think this should be on a t-shirt, or a bumper sticker. :)
heh, maybe.
agree with all of those. but it sounds like you're close to arguing
that because there are so many other things that can screw with DNS,
it's okay for getaddrinfo() to return bogus results too.
i did not say that. what i was trying to say are below:
- you said that you do not trust getaddrinfo/getnameinfo but you seem to
trust other DNS functions/responses.
- under what kind of condition would you trust DNS, and would you not?
- are you sure it is ok when you trust it?
ok, so you are basically worried about uRPF, performance difference,
and/or firewalling policy differences when you have multiple exit links.
it's not just multiple exit links, it's having multiple addresses per
host for any number of reasons. (mobility, renumbering, the desire to
have stable local addresses, and also the possibility of multiple active
network interfaces)
note that "client machines with multiple IP address" has been a
common practice even for IPv4, more than 15 years at least. i had the
first laptop when i was in university, i ran 386BSD (4.4BSD) so that
makes it around 15 years ago.
mobility - i do not see your problem, maybe mobile-ip6 guys would
want to speak up
renumbering - multiple address DO help
stable local address - well, define "stable"
multiple active network interfaces - it is a common practice,
use MacOS X machines with wireless and ethernet and switch them
over time. TCP connection would not survive, which is a
problem,
but other than that, things are seamless (like browsers).
do not take it as a self-promotion, but my take on this is in RFC3178.
but things like RFC 3178 do help. if we can get back to the expectation
that one address per host is the normal case, we'll make life much
simpler for application writers.
the thing is, application writers does not really need to choose
addresses to be used, as long as you write a program/protocol spec
so that it does not embed IPv4/v6 addresses or DNS names. if you
embed it, you would want to use DNS names instead of IPv4/v6 addresses,
as you will want your application to work ok with the next protocol
that would be introduced after IPv6. i would not call it IPv8 :-P
so i can solve problem for Skype, so i guess i can solve problem for
your "distributed computation system". want to hire a consultant? :-P
I can solve it too, and have done so on a couple of occasions. but I
don't pretend that it's easy to retro-fit every existing distributed
application (or to build every new distributed application) to handle
multiple realms. NATs have drastically raised the burden on
applications by dividing the Internet up into multiple address realms;
similarly, IPv4/IPv6 coexistence also divides the Internet up into
multiple address realms. Thus a "mixed" IPv4/IPv6 network is almost as
dysfunctional as a NATted IPv4 network.
ok, i can understand your concern, but we need to do it anyways.
unlike the introduction of IPv4, you cannot set a flag day, can you?
itojun
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf