Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:02:03 +0200

On 22 aug 2008, at 20:47, Tony Li wrote:

> I see a few options: the new site can provide their own mapping  
> service and
> not aggregate, impacting the scalability of the mapping.  The new  
> site can
> find a provider who is covering their existing prefix.  This could  
> be very
> challenging if the prefix is part of the swamp, for example.

Why would you assume this would be done on a commercial basis?

Wouldn't the RIRs be natural candidates to do this?

About the renumbering poll: either avoid it completely or make it a  
routine event, the middle ground is problematic. If we require people  
to renumber to make routing scalable then people are going to wait  
until 5 minutes before the routing system melts down to renumber. See  
IPv6 deployment. (And if MIT renumbered out of their /8 into a /16 or / 
12 or whatever, we'd have a month more of IPv4 address space but they  
and other organizations in the same boat aren't doing that, part of  
the reason is presumably that it's expensive.)

Of course renumbering of locators MUST be routine and easy, if it  
isn't, there is no point in an id/loc scheme.

On 25 aug 2008, at 1:22, Tony Li wrote:

> Do folks really feel that stateless autoconfig is a significant step  
> forward
> vs. DHCP?  Current dual-stack site admins would be especially  
> welcome to
> opine.

I do. Stateless autoconfig is much more robust than DHCP, and DHCPv6  
has some design flaws and is only now seeing somewhat mature  
implementations.

But most ops people who are either new to v6 or are now thinking about  
implementing it seem to prefer DHCPv6. This seems to be equal parts  
unfounded reluctance to do things differently and reasonable reasons.  
For instance, in an enterprise environment it's generally desirable to  
know which host is using which address.

The big issue is what will happen in SOHO environments. Hopefully we  
can make things such that hosts doing only stateless autoconfig can  
function in those rather than imposing DHCPv6 on everyone.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg