> the signing cost consideration really depends on two parameters:
> - how often do we want to renumber
No, not the frequency, the latency. That is, how quickly from the
word "go" do you want to have a change in the set of prefixes be
implemented?
> because of other constraints like below, i don't think i (of any admin)
> ever want try to renumber a site with million nodes.
The *node* count had just better not matter, because we should expect
the number of nodes per {person, house, site, corporation, network}
to increase amazingly during the intended lifetime of IPv6, even if
we can't describe just what all those new nodes will do.
> renumber is a major task which needs a lot of planning.
But do we commit ourselves to *making* it impossible forever, or do
we do what we can toward easing it?
> - if you have hardcoded address in any of your router/host configs,
> you will be in trouble (example: IBGP peer settings, /etc/named.conf
> for zone transfer, packet filtering, anything that is written by
> numeric IPv6 address).
I agree that if we have hardcoded addresses in *hosts*, the game is
over. Eliminating them is an interesting problem, and eliminating
them from routers is even more so.
> - to avoid canopener-in-can situation for records pointed to by NS
> records, nameservers basically has to have "A6 0" records.
> so for these records we don't have benefit from fragmented A6 records.
You could do the same thing that's suggested for glue in section 5.1.2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
