Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 Address Planning

  • From: bmanning
  • Date: Wed Aug 10 13:35:01 2005

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)




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.