I'm sure that the IAB and IESG is keenly interested in this topic but
everyone that cares is subscribed to behave. Getting several copies of
every message does not make the thread any easier to follow. It's no
big deal one way or the other, I am good at hitting the delete key,
but if it was all the same to everyone, I would appreciate it if the
topic could be discussed on the one email which, AFAIC, should be behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
.
Respectfully, Cullen
On Nov 27, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Eric Klein wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
wrote:
> I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few
endpoint devices
> actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum
a service
> interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from
my ISP will
> never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake
of having
> static numbering inside the network.
Bingo. That's exactly the reason long-term I'll probably do it too.
And even this assumes that renumbering support of any kind manifests
in a
useful way. The absolutely dismal state of support for IPv6 in SOHO-
grade
routers is IMO one of the orimary current impediments for IPv6
deployment. And
when IPv6 support does start to show up in these boxes, I really
have to wonder
if they'll get automatic renumbering right, assuming it's supported
at all.
> The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the
greater my
> reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event
that happens
> only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption
when it happens.
> DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively
forced to perform
> a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time
and money to
> fix.
I went for something like 10 years without having to renumber, and
as a result
IP addresses got put in all sorts of nooks and crannies on my
network. Then
suddenly and without warning my ISP announced an emeergency
numbering change
due to an upstream provider switch. The announcement went out at
11:00PM Sunday
night; the renumbering occurred the next morning.
It is a bit of an understatement to say I was not a happy camper.
And then it
happened again a week or so later - easier because I had notes on
all the stuff
that needed changing plus I'd switched to DHCP as much as possible,
but still
no picnic. And then I had to renumber again when I switched ISPs ;-)
But that
should be the last time because I took the opportunity to switch to
1:1 NAT and
private address space.
In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it
deployed is an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
There are many drafts out there on renumbering, maybe we need to
review them to see how they fit in this issue or if NAT would do
away with the need for them. This is the analysis I am asking for.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf