On Oct 31, 2010, at 7:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:21:41 PDT, George Bonser said: > >> With v6, while changing prefixes is easy for some gear, other gear is >> not so easy. If you number your entire network in Provider A's space, >> you might have more trouble renumbering into Provider B's space because >> now you have to change your DHCP ranges, probably visit printers, fax >> machines, wireless gateways, etc. and renumber those, etc. And some >> production boxes that you might have in the office data center are >> probably best left at a static IP address, particularly if they are >> fronted by a load balancer where their IP is manually configured. > > "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have > happened..." > Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this problem, either.
> If a site is numbering their internal IPv4 stuff to avoid having to renumber > on a provider change, then why would they number their IPv6 stuff from > provider space rather than ULA space? > Which gains what vs. PI? > And remember - (a) IPv6 allows machine to easily support multiple addresses > and > (b) if you have a provider address and a ULA, changing providers only means > renumbering a *partial* renumber of the hosts that require external visibility > - your internal hosts can continue talking to each other on a ULA as if > nothing > happened. > If you have PI space, changing providers can be even easier and you can leave multiple providers running in parallel. Owen
