North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Wed Aug 10 15:27:53 2005
On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, email@example.com wrote:
Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because:
so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering
out of a /124 into a /112 how?
1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a /
60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately
2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to
a /48 so there is less to renumber.
renumbering - regardless of version
Not hard, inconvenient.
Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and
similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some
searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal
IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve
because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases.
primarly becuase application developers insist that
the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier,
That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address.
DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either.
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.
How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload?
- regardless, renumbering from one address
I agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must
be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address.
But I guess we have to save something for IPv7.
range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but
constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse.