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