North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:54:10PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 10-aug-2005, at 18:48, [email protected] wrote: > > >>This creates the situation where people try to > >>make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all > >>those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber. > > > ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6 > > is pretty much a myth? > > Renumbering hosts in IPv6 is a breeze. You just change some settings > in the routers and the rest happens automatically. > > It's more renumbering information in the DNS and filters and such > that's a problem, regardless of IP version. so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how? renumbering - regardless of version is hard... primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, not where it is in the routing topology. renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. - regardless, renumbering from one address range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse. --bill (ex chair of the IETF PIER wg)
|