[83309] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed Aug 10 13:34:12 2005
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:32:21 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9E4B58B3-64AA-4D07-A2C2-4DFC69B4B0E2@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:54:10PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10-aug-2005, at 18:48, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> >>This creates the situation where people try to
> >>make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all
> >>those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber.
>
> > ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6
> > is pretty much a myth?
>
> Renumbering hosts in IPv6 is a breeze. You just change some settings
> in the routers and the rest happens automatically.
>
> It's more renumbering information in the DNS and filters and such
> that's a problem, regardless of IP version.
so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering
out of a /124 into a /112 how? renumbering - regardless of version
is hard... primarly becuase application developers insist that
the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, not where it is
in the routing topology. renumbering hosts is a breese in either
version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend. Or if you
want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use
the RA/ND stuff in IPv6. - regardless, renumbering from one address
range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical
constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse.
--bill
(ex chair of the IETF PIER wg)
