>Good points. We have renumbering for the LAN. We have a way to renumber
>from the border routers within a domain. This will get us started for
>deployment. Baby steps are all we can take. If the IETF can extend these
>to grown-up steps great. But we will start deployment now with what we
>got and its already better than IPv4.
>
>I would think someone should put out a draft on all this and state whats
>missing and what needs to be done.
regarding to renumbering, there was a draft by Fred Baker (was it on
i-d repository?), as well as a presentation by jinmei (IETF49?).
the draft/presentation describes timing constraints and steps
necessary for renumbering a leaf site.
yes, it is far better than IPv4 case, but...
>What will not get done here is to get users to not embed addresses in
>configs and there is no incentive for vendors to prevent them from doing
>it.
it is very hard to ensure it, and there are wacky timing constraints
(specifically interactions with DNS cache TTL).
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
