|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re:IPV6 renumbering painless?]]
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote: [...]Except that A6/DNAME also supported your upstream being able to initiate prefix renumbering without having to involve the end customer... Sure. But draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-03.txt says it IMHO well: 6. Acknowledgments [...] Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft. Their comments, if they result in improved address management practices in networks, may be the best contribution this note has to offer. The main thrust of A6/DNAME is adding hooks for handling so-called 'rapid renumbering' and 'not-user-initiated-renumbering' scenarios. That seems unfeasible and unreasonable. Renumbering cannot be prevented. And we should take all the reasonable actions to make sure it's manageable, because otherwise we'll end up with PI/ULAs and NATs. But AFAICS, obtaining a level of 'manageability' should be sufficient. We don't necessarily want or need to solve the most tricky renumbering problems here (e.g., rapid renumbering, automatic renumbering or large sites without any actions from the administrators, etc.). To paraphrase Randy from a couple of years ago: 'Ocean: do not drain.' -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
|