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.
>
>
