On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering
out of a /124 into a /112 how?
Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because:
1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a /
60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately
2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to
a /48 so there is less to renumber.
renumbering - regardless of version
is hard...
Not hard, inconvenient.
primarly becuase application developers insist that
the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier,
Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and
similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some
searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal
IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve
because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases.
renumbering hosts is a breese in either
version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend.
That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address.
DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either.
Or if you
want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use
the RA/ND stuff in IPv6.
How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload?
- regardless, renumbering from one address
range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but
artifical
constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse.
I agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must
be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address.
But I guess we have to save something for IPv7.