On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:27:17PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > There are two that I can point you at, and perhaps the temporal > difference would be at least amusing: > > * Renumbering: Threat or Menace?, Lear, Katinsky, Tharp, et al, > Proceedings of the Tenth Systems Administration Conference (LISA96) > * Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network Without a Flag Day, > Baker, Lear, Droms, RFC 4192, September, 2005. > > I would also add that Tim Chown has done an extensive amount of work in > this space.
Well, it was the 6NET team, and some documentation can be found here: http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D3.6.1.pdf http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D3.6.2.pdf and also Chown, T., Thompson, M., Ford, A., and S. Venaas, "Things to think about when Renumbering an IPv6 network (draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-05.txt)", March 2007. but the feeling in v6ops certainly seems to be 'we don't want to renumber, we'd rather have PI or look at id/loc longer term' so specific effort on making renumbering easier isn't really being made (in that wg at least). > If your point is that you should never have to renumber, then that's a > lovely way to go. It will still happen, of course, as companies merge > and grow. I think IPv6 helps with the latter, but the former is still a > challenge simply because topologies change. IPv6 certainly helps, but doesn't trivialise it by any means. -- Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
