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?]]
Paul Vixie wrote: i do. see, that is. because rapid renumbering wasn't a bilateral protocolAhem. On Day 1 -- that is SIP, for (Steve's) "Simpler IP" and my PIPE "Practical IP Extentions" [later BIP for (Bill's) "Better IP"] -- rapid renumbering *was* a protocol requirement! As was IP Mobility for those long-lived TCP connections. However, prefixes were always explicitly PI (provider independent). And multi-site enterprises had multiple prefixes within them. We talked about competition where providers could be switched on time of day with massive competition. Providers hated it (massive competition) and got another model adopted some years later. That model is a crock of swill.... 10 or so years after IPv4 deployment we started IPng. It's been another decade, past time for IPngng, although IPv6 sure hasn't had the deployment success of IPv4, has it???? ;-) Have we learned anything in 10+ years? -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
|