On 2012-04-04 01:01, Doug Barton wrote:
On 4/3/2012 1:25 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
But of course, I'm always delighted to hear your opinions. Is renumbering
*really* that big of a deal? I suppose multihoming is the bigger, more
serious concern - that's the one we see no viable solution but NAT for,
given small site constraints and aggregation. And yet, here we are, on our
way to flipping the big switch, and nobody seems to be in much of a panic.
Some of us have been saying these things for 10+ years, and continue to
grumble them audibly periodically just in case someone might listen this
time.
Regardless of how it might offend the sensibilities of some (and however
misguided their reasoning might be), People Like NAT. Failure to learn
from the reasons why makes us more irrelevant day by day.
... and yes, renumbering IS that big a deal.
We could go on having this argument, or we could take constructive steps
to deal with the new flexibility that we have gained from IPv6, which indeed
leads to new problems to solve as we start to use that flexibility.
Oh look, we have WGs tackling those problems: MIF, HOMENET, 6RENUM, and
of course V6OPS.
Brian