[134528] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Jan 6 17:15:51 2011
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:14:25 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
In-Reply-To: <D338D1613B32624285BB321A5CF3DB2510A33A05EA@ginga.ai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/6/2011 4:00 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
> In your enterprise, behind your firewall, whatever, where you want
> autoconfig to work, and have some way of dealing with all of the dead
> space, more power to you. But operationally, is*anything* gained
> today by giving every host a /64 to screw around in that isn't
> accomplished by a /120 or so?
Today, I still like SLAAC. All my servers support specifying tokens for
the host portion of the prefix. Pre-config, many utilize traditional
SLAAC and end up in a range which is stateful firewall protected by the
routers until such time as I can renumber them into the appropriate range.
Anyways, ARIN just approved my new allocation and I have to go renumber
all those servers. At least assigning the new IPv6 addresses only
requires a quick router edit. Application changes will take longer, of
course, since we don't automatically generate DNS and other nifties.
The helpdesk, home, and customer trial networks should hopefully
renumber with easy per my last renumbering trial. Link addressing,
loopback changes, BGP, etc in the routers will still be a PITA.
Jack
