nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2019 05:45:26 +0900
Matt Harris wrote:
That is called "provider lock-in", which is the primary reason, when IPng WG was formed, why automatic renumbering is necessary for IPv6.
If this is a concern, then get an allocation from your local RIR and announce it yourself. Then no provider lock-in based on address spaceof any sort.
So, IPv6 did not failed, because manual renumbering is easy and, even if it is hard, we don't need CIDER. Very convincing argument.
In general any sort of provider move is going to be disruptive if you don't have your own address space,
Automatic renumbering is the technology to make it not disruptive. It is doable, if the tricky part of nameserver address changes is properly taken care of. But, people who think renumbering just a prefix change can not do it, resulting in garbages like A6 RRs or IPv6 itself. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Mark Andrews (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Warren Kumari (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Doug Barton (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment tim () pelican org (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Matt Harris (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Masataka Ohta (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Seth Mattinen (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Mark Andrews (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Pain Experiment Seth Mattinen (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Antonios Chariton (Oct 02)
- Re: IPv6 Thought Experiment Antonios Chariton (Oct 02)