Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?

[Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:05:26PM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> > "fixed" as in "now using stateless autoconfig"? Fun... change NIC and
> > you need to change DNS. Thanks, but no thanks. Not for non-mobile
> > devices which need to be reachable with sessions initiated from remote
> > (basically: servers).
>
> You are allowed to do either / both, or DHCP. If you are talking about a
> server you want a static value, while it may not make sense to explicitly
> manage every client. If you don't want to statically configure devices there
> is always DHCPv6. The point is you can do what you do today, then there are
> new capabilities for autoconfiguration that can be used when it makes sense
> to lower operational costs. 

Well, but all you said is in no way different to the IPv4 world and
thus doesn't make renumbering any more easier than in IPv4.

And yes, I think all the workstations WILL need to do DHCP and not
use stateless autoconfig. Workstations are being managed by IT
departments, and they do want to be able to SSH to them all and have
DNS forward/reverse mapping.

I can see NOTHING in IPv6 which makes real world networks any easier
to renumber than IPv4 networks ASIDE the fact that if /48 addressing
is used, renumbering becomes a search-and-replace thing for large
parts of it.

Stateless autoconfig doesn't really provide any added value for ad-hoc
mobile clients than DHCP does in v4 - au contraire, as all the other
information a DHCP server might offer is not provided with stateless
autoconfig.

Stateless autoconfig DOES have uses, but those are for most of us
just exotic corner cases, IMHO.


Regards,
Daniel (who will soon renumber his private network /48 a third time
since he has IPv6 connectivity)

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0