On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:51PM +1000, 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.
We went through a pretty full enterprise renumbering procedure, but were able to control address selection purely through RAs, to indicate the deprecated status where multiple prefixes were advertised. This worked well - address selection was correct on XP, Linux, MacOS and Solaris. Purely for renumbering, RA indications may suffice. There is however, much greater complexity to managing a renumbering event, as Fred described. > I'd guess that any mechanism which interacted with router discovery > to provide address selection policy would need to be integrated with > the ND messages, and the configuration systems applicable to those > messages. There's a few comments I'd make on this (very interesting) thread. It is important that we consider source and destination address selection, i.e. full 3484 policy. We also need to support non-prefix based policy, like whether privacy addresses should be used. As an enterprise admin, I see 3041 as adding a lot of management complexity for little gain (though as a roaming IPv6 user, my view is different :). I don't think the suggested method off 'adding the /128 into the table' cuts it. We also probably would like v4 vs v6 preference too. This has to be done in the knowledge that applications may be trying to make their own choices via APIs here. As an admin, I like DHC as a proposed solution. We've already seen pushback on bloating RAs, e.g. for DNS resolver discovery. I think the DHC-based draft is flawed if it is adding policy not replacing policy - especially where new 'random' labels are being generated where clashes exist. I would like an absolute policy distribution. Greg points out that the hosts may ignore it, but the hosts can ignore allocated addresses too the way many enterprises are run :) I thinka DHC server offlink can give the information... relay agents can handle that? I'd rather have policy configured in one DHC service, or did I misunderstand? Having a per host policy capability would be nice. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
