Subject: Re: inevitability of PI Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:07:53AM +0100 Quoting Tim Chown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 02:57:05PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > > > IPv6 gives users better ways to solve some problems (renumbering, > > attachment of a home network) whereas in IPv4 NATs were the > > best tools available. > > So where are the cost savings in renumbering an IPv6 network as opposed to > renumbering an IPv4 network? This would be an interesting question to expand > on I think...
It is still entirely possible to do the stoopid mistakes of hardwiring
addresses in v6, much as it is (way too common) in v4. But, given
the built-in ability to autoconfigure, and the yet-to-be-built
nature of much v6 deployment, client and simple network services
can be made to switch centrally, by adjusting the RA prefix and
moving things in DNS, perhaps using DynDNS[0].
There will always be pain. That is why we have network admins. But,
given that brain is switched on before net design commences, it is
with v6 possible to considerably lessen the cost/work impact of a
renumber event. Naturally, this can be done in v4 too -- BTDT.
Still, I wonder why I'm debating this here. It is v6ops material.
--
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC
MN1334-RIPE
Wait ... is this a FUN THING or the END of LIFE in Petticoat
Junction??
[0] Jakob Schlyter has done a nice summary of a working methodology
for this; see http://ops.ietf.org/dns/dynupd/secure-ddns-howto.html
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
