ISP customer assignments

Tim Chown tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Oct 21 04:27:15 CDT 2009


On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:15:39PM -0400, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> 
> On Oct 20, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> 
> >In practice, changing stuff, especially globally, is not as simple  
> >as that.
> 
> From <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4192>:
> 
> 'Some took it on themselves to convince the authors that the concept  
> of network renumbering as a normal or frequent procedure is daft.'

We tried Fred's procedure some 4 years ago within 6NET:
http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D3.6.2.pdf

The 'prefix schizo' actually worked out quite well.  The routing changes
and multi-refix links generally behaved as expected.   Address selection
did its thing.   The basics worked as advertised.

The complexity is of course not in the routing and hosts, it's as pointed 
out in the firewalls and similar devices (yours and more importantly other 
people's) for which new capabilities of IPv6 can't help.

We captured some of these thoughts at the time in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-05

and since then Brian Carpenter has produced a much more up to date and
rounded set of thoughts in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-03

We're far from a magic button press.   In smaller networks RFC4192
is workable, but the larger and more complex the network/site, there's
still so many open issues that it's completely understandable the
people will want PI.

-- 
Tim




More information about the NANOG mailing list