Renumbering Still Needs Work

Carpenter, Brian; Flinck, Hannu; Atkinson, R.

doi:10.17487/rfc5887

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, some servers must have known locators, such as the DNS server.) The issues described in [RFC5887] will be ameliorated, but not resolved.…”

Section: Rebuttalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evolution [Evolution] Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [ILNP_Site] Renumbering [RFC5887] 17.3. Rationale…”

Section: Recommendation To the Ietfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No routing architecture will be able to scale without some form of abstraction, and domains that change their point of attachment must fundamentally be prepared to change their locators in line with this abstraction. We recognize that [RFC5887] is not a solution so much as a problem statement, and we are simply recommending that the IETF create effective and convenient mechanisms for site renumbering. Informational [Page 65] …”

Section: Recommendation To the Ietfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recommendation for a Routing Architecture

Li¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, some servers must have known locators, such as the DNS server.) The issues described in [RFC5887] will be ameliorated, but not resolved.…”

Section: Rebuttalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Evolution [Evolution] Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [ILNP_Site] Renumbering [RFC5887] 17.3. Rationale…”

Section: Recommendation To the Ietfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recommendation To the Ietfmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recommendation for a Routing Architecture

Li¹

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is because most operators consider that renumbering a network is too complex. Despite a lot of discussions on this topic [14], the IETF does not provide a solution to easily renumber a corporate network. Thanks to DHCP and IPv6's stateless auto-configuration, most hosts can easily change their address, but for servers and routers this remains difficult.…”

Section: Open Issues With Shim6 Multihomingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and evaluation of the Shim6 protocol in the Linux kernel

Barré

Ronan

Bonaventure

2011

Computer Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn the changing landscape of the todays Internet, several solutions are under investigation to allow efficient, flexible and scalable multihoming. One of the proposals is shim6, a host-based multihoming solution based on the use of multiple IPv6 addresses on each host. In this work, we first describe the main features of this protocol, then we explain our implementation of shim6, along with the associated security mechanisms in the Linux kernel and, finally, we evaluate its performance. In particular, we analyse the performance impact of the security mechanisms used by shim6 and the impact of shim6 on the performance of end-host systems, especially heavily loaded servers. We conclude by discussing the remaining open issues for a widespread deployment of host-based multihoming techniques such as shim6.

show abstract

“…As introduced in [RFC5887], renumbering, especially for medium to large sites and networks, is currently viewed as expensive and painful. This error-prone process is avoided by network managers as much as possible.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%