A6/DNAME not needed for v6 renumbering [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]]

Mon Nov 29 06:53:46 UTC 2004

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except that A6/DNAME also supported your upstream being able to initiate
> prefix renumbering without having to involve the end customer...
[...]

Sure.  But draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-03.txt says it IMHO 
well:

6.  Acknowledgments
[...]
    Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept
    of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft.
    Their comments, if they result in improved address management
    practices in networks, may be the best contribution this note has to
    offer.

The main thrust of A6/DNAME is adding hooks for handling so-called 
'rapid renumbering' and 'not-user-initiated-renumbering' scenarios. 
That seems unfeasible and unreasonable.

Renumbering cannot be prevented.  And we should take all the 
reasonable actions to make sure it's manageable, because otherwise 
we'll end up with PI/ULAs and NATs.  But AFAICS, obtaining a level of 
'manageability' should be sufficient.  We don't necessarily want or 
need to solve the most tricky renumbering problems here (e.g., rapid 
renumbering, automatic renumbering or large sites without any actions 
from the administrators, etc.).

To paraphrase Randy from a couple of years ago: 'Ocean: do not drain.'

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings