|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: renumbering & IPv6
On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:27 PM, David Barak wrote: from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4192.txtPerhaps a customer who wanted to make IP addresses "portable" would pay a fee to the ISP whose addresses they are, and maintain redirection equipment to the "real" IPs... And perhaps the price of doing so would actually be higher than just keeping a T1 to that first provider... ----- 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. ----- Without PI space for customers, both renumbering and traffic engineering/redundancy for the enterprise customer become a) horribly complex and b) subject to the whims of business relationships. Neither of these conditions is tolerable for those customers; turning every host on the network into a router via a Shim-6-like mechanism isn't, either (can you imagine help-desks who can barely cope with basic Windows issues trying to support Shim-6, heh?). Until these issues are resolved, widespread adoption of IPv6 by large enterprise customers for general-purpose networking will be problematic (note that these aren't the only issues, but they are gating issues which render the others moot) at best. Vendors, network operators and those participating in standards bodies must understand the seriousness of these issues for customers and work to address them (pardon the pun, heh). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // 408.527.6376 voice One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth
|