|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]]
[email protected] (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes: > I'm going to try to make this my last message on this subject... ok. > In addition to portable address space being harmful, I also believe > it's not really necessary. Renumbering client-only systems is NOT a > problem with DHCP or IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration. (With the > latter, it's even completely transparent to the user. I've tried it.) as long as you don't have any long running tcp sessions open at the time, or the ones you're running will gracefully restart, you'll get transparency. > With some tools managing the DNS during renumbering also isn't a real > issue. Reconfiguring routers and other network infrastructure isn't > entirely trivial at this point, but this is being worked on. I don't see > why this shouldn't be solved to a satisfactory degree in the future. i do. see, that is. because rapid renumbering wasn't a bilateral protocol requirement from day 1, renumbering will always be a crock of swill in ipv6 just as it is in ipv4. > If organizations with PA space want to peer, this shouldn't be a problem: > they just announce their /48 to their peers. Obviously if people are > interested in peering, they'll be willing to carry the more specifics in > their routing tables. The difference with PI is that if they filter the > route out, there is no loss of connectivity. this assumes that the provider who assigned the /48 allows cutouts. (hint.) > Remember that IPv4 still has a few good years in it so there is time to > fix problems with IPv6 so we get to do it right from the start rather > than have the same mess we have now with larger addresses. in the spirit of making lemonade, sure, let's treat the connectionless ip networking model as not having been stateless enough, and with ipv6 where we have a lot more addresses, let's just do away with ever having any one address used by any one endpoint for very long. i guess i understand that, even though it makes no sense. sort of a catch-22 thing, right? -- Paul Vixie
|