Subject: [OPS-AREA] FW: [Fwd: Starting some discussion on renumbering]

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:00:11 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:59 AM
To: Ron Bonica; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Subject: [Fwd: Starting some discussion on renumbering]

After a short discussion today in the IntArea WG today...

If you think this should be circulated to the Ops area, please do so.

     Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Starting some discussion on renumbering
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:55:55 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Organization: University of Auckland
To: Internet Area Mailing List <[email-masked]>

RFC 5887 (Renumbering still needs work) was published in May 2010.

I will assume that you've read it. It isn't a philosophical document; it
is meant to be technical.

So, the problem is that in any future scenario, site renumbering will
sometimes be needed, but remains very hard and impractical for most
sites. RFC 5887 justifies these statements.

What are we going to do about it?
- Is IPv4 site renumbering a lost cause?
- Should we focus entirely on IPv6? That is probably easier in several
  ways (new deployment for most sites, not constrained by a shortage
  of prefixes)
- We need a gap analysis. Is the gap analysis in RFC 5887 sufficient?
- In any case we should focus on what is doable, and put other problems
  on the "too hard" pile.

If you are interested in contributing to some work in this area, please
let me know (off-list is fine). If there is enough interest, we can set
up an ad hoc mailing list and decide on the next steps.
Remember that the cut-off for BOF requests for IETF 80 will be somewhere
round the end of January. Not much time...

--
Regards
   Brian Carpenter