Eliot Lear wrote: > Mark Andrews wrote: >> I would have thought that router renumbering should be no >> harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are >> changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All >> that is required is a method to distribute the set of >> prefixes in use with a set of tags (global, deprecated, >> ula, advertise in RA, etc.). >> > > I think there has been hype on both sides of this question. Router > renumbering used to be VERY annoying. I've now published several times > on the subject
Any links to the papers? > and I can say that it's not as hard as it was, but it's > not as easy as it could be. Specifically, prefix delegation should do > the job for small routers, particularly in the consumer market. Making > use of PD in the enterprise is more experimental, I would say, because, > as Bill alludes, there are quite a number of knobs to play with. > Consider that a typical enterprise router not only has interface > addresses and routing subsystems and firewalls, but may also have such > fun as VRRP/HSRP configurations, load balancing capabilities, > NetFlow/sflow collectors, multicast configuration that has some unicast > addresses hidden in it, management configuration (e.g., SNMP, SYSLOG, > other), and the like. Indeed, but except for firewalling, it is why I mentioned using a "local" space (PI) or some other 'globally unique chunk that they can keep'. One will then configure all the internal setups (snmp,syslog,sflow/netflow etc) using the forever addresses and won't have to care about those anymore. Routing internally can also happen using those addresses, though the scary bit is of course when the MTU does change or a Host/Net unreach has to be sent, the router has to pick the correct global address and not the one which is only used inside the network. A block like fc00::/7 could make it easy to then choose the address based on the target, but how sure are you that the other organization is not using global unicast space for their internal networks? Even if that dual setup might not be accepted everywhere, I mean if you have PI why should one want to add the mess of two networks? > In my opinion, this means that the router of the future needs to look a > little different, and this has implications for other subsystems. [..goodbits..] Which is indeed why I am thinking that ID/LOC is the way to go. One internal prefix on the local network, and whatever prefix is on the global Internet. Apply ID/LOC when your packets are going somewhere where you can't use your local prefix. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
