On 31/07/2012 17:59, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <Brian> writes: > >> I'm also surprised that we think we have to cope with flash renumbering > >> as a regular event, rather than a service-interrupting, ISP truck roll > >> catastrophy. > > Brian> But every time you reboot your antiquated v4-only CPE and/or the > antiquated > Brian> v4-only PCs behind it, the PCs all get new IP addresses, which may > or > Brian> may not be the same as the previous time. There's nothing new in > flash > Brian> renumbering for homenets. Not handling this would be a step > Brian> backwards. > > Well... > > 1) sure, but the *customer* does this, not the ISP. > 2) the clients do have DHCP leases, and if they ask to renew their > previous IP, it usually gets honored.
It doesn't matter whether it's the user or the ISP that triggers a change, does it? The point is, users don't care about this, except if they reach their shiny new wireless printer via its IP static address. There are definitely parts of draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem that apply here. Brian > > In IPv6 space, the host part will generally stay the same (modulo > privacy extensions, which are default on for some clients). We've said > that the ULA ought to stay the same, so in fact, I agree, the internal > addresses actually all stay the same. > > I'm still surprised that an ISP will need to flash renumber faster than > it can just expire leases. If it's just repartitioning of network to > deal with growth, that ought to be predictable and prefix lifetimes can > be reduced in advance. > > If it's actually some equipment failing, resulting in service > interruptions, and then restoration by rewiring the network... then I > understand. > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
