On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint > devices > > actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a > service > > interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my ISP > will > > never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake of > having > > static numbering inside the network. > > Bingo. That's exactly the reason long-term I'll probably do it too. > > And even this assumes that renumbering support of any kind manifests in a > useful way. The absolutely dismal state of support for IPv6 in SOHO-grade > routers is IMO one of the orimary current impediments for IPv6 deployment. > And > when IPv6 support does start to show up in these boxes, I really have to > wonder > if they'll get automatic renumbering right, assuming it's supported at all. > > > The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my > > reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that > happens > > only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when it > happens. > > DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively forced to > perform > > a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time and > money to > > fix. > > I went for something like 10 years without having to renumber, and as a > result > IP addresses got put in all sorts of nooks and crannies on my network. Then > suddenly and without warning my ISP announced an emeergency numbering > change > due to an upstream provider switch. The announcement went out at 11:00PM > Sunday > night; the renumbering occurred the next morning. > > It is a bit of an understatement to say I was not a happy camper. And then > it > happened again a week or so later - easier because I had notes on all the > stuff > that needed changing plus I'd switched to DHCP as much as possible, but > still > no picnic. And then I had to renumber again when I switched ISPs ;-) But > that > should be the last time because I took the opportunity to switch to 1:1 NAT > and > private address space. > > In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it deployed is > an > essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66. > > There are many drafts out there on renumbering, maybe we need to review them to see how they fit in this issue or if NAT would do away with the need for them. This is the analysis I am asking for.
Eric
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
