[131648] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Sun Oct 31 15:23:57 2010
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:23:10 -0700
In-Reply-To: <BE727A2A-83AD-41D2-BDC3-BD75ACEE6D89@virtualized.org>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> Seems to me the options are:
>=20
> 1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing
> table bloat
> 2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing
> table bloat
> 3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost,
no
> routing table bloat
>=20
In my particular case, IPv6 offers no advantage when it comes to
renumbering. It is just exactly as difficult to renumber with v6 as it
is with v4. I do understand that in a lot of cases where end nodes are
autoconfiguring based on RA it makes it easy but in many places that
really isn't an option.
