Brian,
Yes, that is true, renumbering is a fact and we may be doing it
eventually but hopefully not frequently.
Needing to renumbering every time that a large enterprise changes
internet provider (frequently, every 2 or 3 years perhaps) it is simply not
practical today and possibly it will never be.
Regards,
as
On 7 Aug 2012, at 05:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Martin,
>
> As far as the mass market goes, multiple prefixes and renumbering are a fact
> of life.
> See the MIF and HOMENET WGs for more.
>
> As far as enterprise networks go, renumbering is rather undesirable but
> sometimes
> inevitable, see 6RENUM.
>
> Regards
> Brian
>
> On 07/08/2012 08:46, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
>>> On 06/08/2012 23:02, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>>>> Randy Bush wrote:
>>>>>> whatever the number of address bits, if it is fixed, we always run out.
>>>>>> memory addressing has been a cliff many times. ip addressing. ...
>>>>> Yup. To quote Fred Brooks on memory address space: "Every successful
>>>>> computer architecture eventually runs out of address space" -- and I heard
>>>>> him say that in 1973.
>>>> I'm wondering what resource shortage would have happened if IPv6
>>>> had been massively adopted 10 years earlier, and whether we would have
>>>> seen the internet backbone routers suffer severely from the size
>>>> of the routing tables, if every single home customer (DSL subscriber)
>>>> would have required a provider-independent IPv6 network prefix rather
>>>> than a single, provider-dependent IPv4 IP Address.
>>> That was never a likely scenario (and still isn't). PA prefixes are still
>>> the norm for mass-market IP, regardless of version number.
>>
>>
>> IPv6 PA prefixes result in that awkward renumbering.
>> Avoiding the renumbering implies provider independent
>> network prefix.
>>
>> With IPv4, you would have typically keept your IPv4 network address
>> (the old class A, B & C from early 199x) even when changing network
>> providers.
>>
>>
>> To me, IPv6 PA prefixes look like a pretty useless feature
>> (from the customer perspective). Either you want an provider-independent
>> prefix to avoid the renumbering when changing providers,
>> or you want some level of privacy protection and therefore
>> a fully dynamic temporary DHCP-assigned IPv6 address
>> (same network prefix for 10000+ customers of the ISP)
>> and for use with NAT (again to avoid the renumbering).
>>
>> IPv6 renumbering creates huge complexity without value (for the customer).
>>
>> -Martin
>>
