I disagree…
Renumbering a wisely deployed network in IPv6 is _MUCH_ less overhead and much
much easier (and faster) in IPv6 than it was in IPv4, even on large-ish scales.
There’s on PA-ISP lockin in IPv6 unless you build your network stupidly.
If you use DHCPv6 or SLAAC to assign addresses to the majority of your systems
and static address your servers only, renumbering is relatively quick and
not particularly painful.
1. Connect the new ISP and add the new ranges to the routers.
2. Add the new address range(s) to the servers.
3. Change your SLAAC RAs and DHCP servers over to announcing the
new addresses
4. Wait until the old addresses are deprecated off the interfaces
of all the clients.
5. Remove the old address range(s) from the servers.
6. Remove the old address ranges from the routers.
7. Disconnect the old ISP
Personally, if I were running an SMB IT department, I’d much rather face the
above 7 steps for each ISP changeover than the joys of ULA+NPTv6.
OTOH, I’d probably just multi home in most cases, in which case, RIR /48 here I
come, easy peasy, current policy.
Owen
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 09:38 , Larry R. Dockery <lrdoc...@co.douglas.or.us>
> wrote:
>
> Aside from it making ULA+NTPv6 a smart move, perhaps even best practice for
> the majority of businesses to adopt rather than allow PA-ISP lock-in, no.
>
> With the mentioned routing issue not being sustainable however, my proposal
> is likely DOA.
>
> Thank you.
>
> From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 9:00 AM
> To: Larry R. Dockery <lrdoc...@co.douglas.or.us
> <mailto:lrdoc...@co.douglas.or.us>>
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
>
> Is there a reason that you think the majority of small businesses that are
> not going to multi home should
> receive PI addresses rather than use PA?
>
> I’m neither in favor nor opposed at this time, but the answer to the above
> question is pivotal to whether
> this proposal serves an actual need or merely panders to the idea of PI for
> everybody, which until we
> change our routing technology to separate locators from identifiers isn’t
> sustainable.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2021, at 07:51 , Larry R. Dockery <lrdoc...@co.douglas.or.us
> <mailto:lrdoc...@co.douglas.or.us>> wrote:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/>
>
> I would like to hear community feedback on this proposal. Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net
> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any
> issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
