[75786] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Wed Nov 24 09:21:21 2004
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:19:15 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3zn176f23.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
>i do. see, that is. because rapid renumbering wasn't a bilateral protocol
>requirement from day 1, renumbering will always be a crock of swill in ipv6
>just as it is in ipv4.
>
>
>
Ahem. On Day 1 -- that is SIP, for (Steve's) "Simpler IP" and my PIPE
"Practical IP Extentions" [later BIP for (Bill's) "Better IP"] --
rapid renumbering *was* a protocol requirement! As was IP Mobility
for those long-lived TCP connections.
However, prefixes were always explicitly PI (provider independent).
And multi-site enterprises had multiple prefixes within them.
We talked about competition where providers could be switched on time of
day with massive competition. Providers hated it (massive competition)
and got another model adopted some years later. That model is a crock
of swill....
10 or so years after IPv4 deployment we started IPng. It's been
another decade, past time for IPngng, although IPv6 sure hasn't had the
deployment success of IPv4, has it???? ;-)
Have we learned anything in 10+ years?
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
