IPv6 Pain Experiment

Fri Oct 4 12:14:20 UTC 2019

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:42 PM Masataka Ohta <
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Doug Barton wrote:
>
> >> Automatic renumbering involving DNS was important design goal
> >> of IPv6 with reasons.
> >>
> >> Lack of it is still a problem.
>
> > Meanwhile, the thing that most people miss about IPv6 is that except in
> > edge cases, you never have to renumber. You get a massive address block
> > that you can use as long as you pay your bill.
>
> That is called "provider lock-in", which is the primary
> reason, when IPng WG was formed, why automatic renumbering
> is necessary for IPv6.
>

If this is a concern, then get an allocation from your local RIR and
announce it yourself. Then no provider lock-in based on address space of
any sort.

In general any sort of provider move is going to be disruptive if you don't
have your own address space, so that should be taken into account when
choosing to use address space that is somebody else's for production
services that need to be reachable globally.

> So, again, stop spreading FUD.
>
> Look at the fact that IPv6 failed badly.
>

Huh? IPv6 has succeeded slowly, not failed badly. There are loads of us
using it in production today just fine.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191004/98211494/attachment.html>