> On 25 Mar 2015, at 02:01, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote: >> >>> On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> [...] Make-before-break >>> renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't >>> rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that >>> there is no such thing as renumbering: there is only numbering.) >> >> Any reference for reading (on Fred’s principle)? > > I'm not aware of a written version; it's something I've heard him say > more than once. Of course there is RFC 4192, but it isn't in that.
And it’s very true. A point made several times through 6renum’s lifetime. For one, it’s in the introduction here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering-00> Tim > Brian >> >>> [...] However, Dave Taht told us >>> recently that renumbering *is* currently broken, and I'd like to see his >>> list of issues. For now, here are the issues that I see: >> >> I’ll let Dave answer for himself, but my personal experience at home >> currently is that it breaks quite often. As soon as the home network gets >> renumbered, new RAs are flooded, but no RAs are sent to de-prefer the >> current prefix (as specified in RFC7084 L-13). I’ve seen this happen both >> with 6RD and in native, with two home router vendors. I usually flap my link >> physically to flush old addresses. >> >> Btw, I didn’t raise this morning, but I believe smooth renumbering from an >> ISP is possible, at least for cable ISPs (costly, but possible). This >> requires support for multiple concurrent prefix delegations on home routers, >> which I haven’t seen yet in the wild. This requirement isn’t explicitly >> mentioned in RFC7084, only indirectly through the support for DHCPv6-PD >> (WPD-1). >> >> So on the short term, proper implementation of RFC7084 L-13 is required for >> smoother unplanned renumbering. For smooth planned renumbering, support for >> multiple concurrent PDs is required. It’s too bad that the homenet >> architecture doc (RFC7368 section 3.4.1) does not even mentions this >> possibility. >> >> JF >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
