On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
Sure. But that assumes that the hosts know their addresses.
They do. It would be the address they are using.
As I understood it, a host would configure its IPv6 address as today
(stateless, DHCPv6, etc). And the shim proxy would form a HBA
parameter set (based on the prefixes assigned to the site) for each
host and run a 1:1 NAT. In that case the host doesn't know which IPv6
address the proxy has picked for it.
The proxy wouldn't pick addresses, it would only map prefixes. So the
end-host inside the shimmed area could use a CGA address (thanks btw
for helping me to prod my brain into grokking them offline ;) ). Ie:
host uses: <prefix>:<CGA interface identifier>
(a shim6 ULID essentially, even if the host isn't quite aware of this).
Proxy: maps <prefix> to <LocatorN> according to established shim6
protocols.
Or where you thinking that the host could only use DHCPv6 and the
shim proxy and the DHCP server would coordinate things so that the
host is informed of its shimmed addresses?
The host might /only/ have a shimmed address.
It might also have other addresses, I don't know. Sadly there isn't a
good way that I know of to indicate metrics for prefix-advertisements.
You mean you assume it is ok to publish unreachable addresses in the
DNS?
Why wouldn't it be exactly? Publishing something in DNS is no
guarantee of reachability. It would be /intended/ to be reachable, via
shim6.
The taboo was on non-globally-unique addresses in DNS, i thought?
Even if folks agree on that, the fact that the internal hosts would
see both the local/internal address, and the shimmed addresses, would
mean that they might seeming randomly end up using the shimmed
addresses, and such internal communication ends up going via the
proxy.
Not sure why that'd be so. It's an interior routing issue.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Peter's hungry, time to eat lunch.