Re: IPv6 Address Planning

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 06:54:10PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 10-aug-2005, at 18:48, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
>
> > > This creates the situation where people try to
> > > make do with a /56, find out that they need a /48 after all (all
> > > those /64 ptps...) and have to renumber.
>
> >    ah... so is there the admission that renumbering in IPv6
> >    is pretty much a myth?
>
> Renumbering hosts in IPv6 is a breeze. You just change some settings  
> in the routers and the rest happens automatically.
>
> It's more renumbering information in the DNS and filters and such  
> that's a problem, regardless of IP version.

        so renumbering out of a /56 into a /48 is harder than renumbering
        out of a /124 into a /112 how?  renumbering - regardless of version
        is hard... primarly becuase application developers insist that
        the IP address is the nodes persistant identifier, not where it is
        in the routing topology.  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.  - regardless, renumbering from one address
        range to another is painful - CIDR -might- be helpful, but artifical
        constraints e.g /64 only serve to confuse.

--bill 
(ex chair of the IETF PIER wg)