North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: IPv6 Address Planning
On 10-aug-2005, at 19:32, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Having a /60 or a /48 is better than a /56 or a /48 because:so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering out of a /124 into a /112 how?
1. Most people who are going to encounter the problem realize that a / 60 isn't enough and go for the /48 immediately
2. Going from a /60 to a /48 would happen earlier than from a /56 to a /48 so there is less to renumber.
renumbering - regardless of version is hard...
Not hard, inconvenient.
Disagree. There are two issues: the DNS and access restrictions and similar based on IP addresses. The DNS can be fixed with some searching and replacing and/or dynamic DNS updates, but using literal IP addresses, especially in filters and such, isn't easy to solve because there are no reasonable alternatives in many cases.primarly becuase application developers insist that the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier,
That friend will kill all your sessions when you get a new address. DHCP implementations in IPv6 aren't ready for prime time either.renumbering hosts is a breese in either version of predominate IP protocol, DHCP is your friend.
Or if you want less robust functionality and semantic overload, you can use the RA/ND stuff in IPv6.
How is that less robust and does it imply a semantic overload?
- regardless, renumbering from one addressI agree. All boundaries between different parts of the address must be flexible. That includes the boundary at the end of the address. But I guess we have to save something for IPv7.