On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 02:03:43PM +1100, Mark Smith wrote: > > However, I can't see a typical organisation changing its global prefix > more than once every thirty days. If you do, maybe Mobile IPv6 is the > thing for you (I could be speaking out of turn here, I don't know much > about Mobile IPv6). > > If you are running mission critical applications that require very long > lived TCP connections you are far more conservative in making network > infrastructure changes, addressing being one of them. You probably only > review your ISP contracts once every 12 months, and make it a > contractual decision that your globally assigned prefix will not change > during that period. If you wish to change ISPs, one of the associated > costs is mission critical down time, which you would weigh into the > costs-benefit of changing ISPs.
I think this is one aspect of the problem, that it's hard to predict what the renumbering requirements will be. I recall this was one of the reasons back last summer that A6 bit the dust, that the requirements, and likely future frequency of, renumbering wasn't yet understood. I agree at present for many organisations it's an annual price review issue. Note though that site-locals are not just about avoiding pain in renumbering, the same arguments apply for intermittent connectivity, or sites who connect and receive a different prefix each time, e.g. if future IPv6 DSL providers allocate dynamic /48's in the way that dynamic IPv4 addresses are allocated now. That might be a daily event. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
