Re: rules matching ipv6 prefix addrs

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 11/04/2010 03:24 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Thursday 2010-11-04 15:41, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 11/04/2010 07:08 AM, Stephen Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now, the upstream (ISP-assigned) prefix changes to
>>>> 2001:6b2f:1705::/48. RA will handle reassigning addresses to actual
>>>> downstream hosts, but things that explicitly encode IPv6 addresses
>>>> need to be changed, and that includes ip6tables, in this case these
>>>> rules now need to refer to 2001:6b2f:1705:0000::/52,
>>>> 2001:62bf:1705:1000::/52 and so on.
>>>>
>>> Won't this break existing tcp connections if all of a sudden you get a
>>> new address?
>>
>> Yes.  Welcome to the brave new world of IPv6.  One of many reasons why IPv6 IMO
>> is seriously misdesigned, but it's what we have and we no longer have the time
>> to do anything else.
>
> Well we know academia is evil as they never talk to us on linux-netdev
> when designing protocols behind closed doors.
>
> One could also argue that IPv6 just does what it does, and that any
> extra feature is layered... what you want sounds like Shim6.

Or Mobile IPv6 or whatever... however, it's unlikely that whatever 
solution is going to be universal.

	-hpa