On 2013-02-24 9:20 AM, "Brzozowski, John" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Thanks for the clarification Ted. I recall this being looked at as a >standard practice ~10 years ago even for larger providers, however, the >challenges associated with the same out weighed any perceived benefits. I >do not hear much about this sort of thing these days. Agreed. Renumbering for large deployments like the one I am familiar with are related to the necessity to manage the network, growth and other access network related dynamics. This is an expensive exercise, and I would venture to say most operators would only do it based on necessity. Although we don't like it, some amount of renumbering will occur (hard to same how much just yet given there are some differences with IPv6 vs. IPv4 related to addressing). Regards, Victor K >-----Original Message----- >From: Ted Lemon <[email protected]> >Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:31 PM >To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando > >>On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Brzozowski, John" >><[email protected]> wrote: >>> I do not think the issue here is privacy or lack of interest in the >>>same. >>> It is ensuring capacity is managed appropriately. Further, allocating >>> static blocks to everyone has an entirely different set of impacts that >>>go >>> much deeper in the network beyond the home. >> >>To be clear, what I was talking about is a policy of deliberately >>renumbering the customer in the absence of any operational need to do so, >>other than a misguided attempt to enforce a contract clause that some >>might describe as unconscionable. I happen to know that your company >>doesn't do any such thing, because I'm a customer, but I have heard of >>small ISPs doing this sort of thing with IPv4. >> >>I think the IPv6 architecture is quite robust in the face of such >>behavior, certainly in comparison to IPv4. But the point is that if >>this sort of behavior on the part of the ISP introduces some hiccups in >>the performance of the homenet, this is par for the course. >> > >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
