Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported
james.cutler at consultant.com
james.cutler at consultant.com
Sun Mar 27 17:29:43 UTC 2022
> On Mar 27, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> james.cutler at consultant.com wrote:
>
> > I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger
> > involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is
> > required and which partially or fully overlap.
>
> As you mention "overlap", you should mean business merger implies
> network and office merger, which causes relocation of a office,
Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a fundamental part of this discussion. Formerly separate networks containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without renumbering.
Mergers do not cause relocation of an office, which is not germane to this discussion.
> which, in general, requires provider change and renumbering
> of globally unique addresses, unless you own /24.
Moot since we are not discussing office moves. However, renumbering to global IPv6 addressing allows easy coexistence with the global Internet
>
> > Ignoring short-sighted
> > financial management views, the best long term solution is globally
> > unique IPv6 addressing wherever possible.
>
> See above.
See previous.
>
> Or, if you mean network merger remotely with VPN, small
> number of hosts requiring E2E transparency may be renumbered,
> but it is not so painful.
Nobody mentioned VPN or limiting the number of hosts requiring E2E. “not so painful” is not meaningful metric in this discussion.
>
> Masataka Ohta
More information about the NANOG
mailing list