On 08/08/2012 06:30, Doug Barton wrote: > On 08/07/2012 10:19 PM, Martin Rex wrote: >> Mark Andrews wrote: >>> In message <5021742a.70...@dougbarton.us>, Doug Barton writes: >>>> On 08/07/2012 00:46, Martin Rex wrote: >>>>> IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering. >>>>> Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent >>>>> network prefix. >>>> ULA on the inside + https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296 >>> If you are changing your external connection you may as well just use >>> ULA + PA. The DNS needs to be updated in either case, the firewall needs >>> to be updated in either case. >> And what about running apps and network connections in the connected state? > > If they are connected external to your network then obviously they would > have to be restarted ... but then you know that already. :)
And any mission-critical application that can't survive a disconnect and reconnect is badly broken anyway. I've never understood why session survival was so highly rated; this has vastly complicated every discussion of multihoming for many years. Brian > > If "PI everywhere" were a feasible strategy at this time, I'd be first > in line. But it isn't, so I think it's worthwhile discussing how we can > do what we _can_ do, best. > >