On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
I'm not sure anyone is doing it, but renumbering is applicable
there as a means of providing information about which prefixes are
valid.
One of the outcomes of the v6ops WG last week was the observation
that the Router Renumbering Protocol is not widely implemented, and
when renumbering-in-anger persuant to
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-
procedure-05.txt
"Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day",
Fred Baker,
18-Mar-05, <draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05.txt>
was tested by the 6net folks, it was found wanting in a variety of
ways. Basically, it made the special case where you want to
distribute a new aggregated prefix and maintain the same subnet
number distribution (such as "I have changed upstream provider")
pretty simple, but didn't cover any of the other cases in which one
might want to renumber, and didn't handle any of the nuances like
making sure this also happened in route maps, aggregation filters,
qos classification filters, etc.
As the discussion proceeded, we basically decided that renumbering
(and more generally number distribution and number use policy) was
the province of the network management folks, perhaps netconf. They
need to decide how to manage a network, and if a protocol like RRP is
part of that, specify a set of requirements for it. RRP at minimum
needs work, and I would suggest it be declared "historic" and
replaced with a new protocol if such a definition happens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
