Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format drafts

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:58:40 -0700

Editorial:
Interaction with routing.............Error! Bookmark not defined.

My $0.02 about it:
As an end customer, I don't find it as appealing as an IPv4 PI block.
There is something about IPv4 PI blocks that you kind of "own" the
address space. Large corporations that have (with or without a valid
reason) a tendency to geographically relocate would have to re-number.

Michel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 11:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format
drafts

The updates to the provider independent address format & usage drafts
are available at:
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-fmt-01.txt
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-01.txt

The usage document has been significantly reworked to address both
direct comments, as well as distillation of key issues from various mail
threads on nanog & multi6 lists. At this point comments should be
directed to the multi6 list.

Tony

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:56:39 +0200 (CEST)

> >  Large corporations that have (with or without a valid
> if you're doing a massive relocation in physical space, the renumbering 
> of your IP network doesn't seem like a huge additional burden.

The physical relocation might me relatively minor.
For instance, large corporations might choose to define one place
(e.g. one building on one of many campuses) as the coordinates as the
single place that defines the IP address prefix for the whole company
yet that building might house much less than 1% of the company's IP devices
and people.

This means that giving up the lease on that single building will cause all
IP devices to renumber yet the costs due to the physical relocation are
small.

  Erik

---

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:28:14 -0700

Thank you, Brian. renumbering a two-router, three-host lab setup is one
thing.

Renumbering a 100-router, 300-server, 24x7 $1M/day revenue generating
room is quite another one.

Michel.

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
>
> Tony, for several years now we have talked about making renumbering
> *significantly easier*, not making it fully automatic.
>
> But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and nobody has tried
> that yet on any significant scale.
>
>  Brian

>>> Tony Li wrote:
>>>
>>> I have to admit to considerable amusement to see people arguing that
>>> renumbering in V6 is too painful.
>>>
>>> Tony

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:48:35 +0100 (BST)

On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Keith Moore wrote:

> I've been involved with renumbering of ~300 IPv4 machines of widely varying
> platforms, in less than an hour, on multiple occasions.   It took prior 
> planning, a bit of coding, and a mechanism for quickly finding the machines 
> on which the renumbering failed.  But it wasn't rocket science.
> If we had standard tools to do this it would be even easier.  

Hi Keith,

Is that 300 servers, or mostly clients?  If you have a few hundred, or
thousands of domains with (virtual or otherwise) mail, web and other
(perhaps black box) services hosted then while I agree the renumbering
isn't rocket science, it's not much fun logistically.   There's domain
registrations to update, firewalls to change, a fair few Windows
applications which insist on IP numbers being keyed in manually, smooth
mail transitions, updates on other people's references to your IPs, 
and plenty of places where IPs are hard coded on Unix systems.  I agree 
prior planning is key, but to suggest most sites can press a button
and have it done in an hour seems optimistic :-)

At present operators such as Worldcom have smaller enterprises over a
barrel for bandwidth charges.  As bandwidth costs fall, and you see rival
operators prices looking far more attractive, perhaps up to 50% less,
it's not a no brainer to move operator because you have to renumber,
and your current operator knows that, and can keep their fees higher for
you regardless.   If IPv6 were able to offer less painful renumbering
(which will need help from the likes of Checkpoint and Microsoft), or
we had some non-NAT form of provider-independent addressing, great.  But
as it is, smaller enterprises who don't have leverage to take address
blocks with them suffer when seeking competitive bandwidth rates.  With
NAT perceived as the "easy" form of provider independent addressing, I'm
not convinced we won't see IPv6 NAT.

tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:37:50 +0200 (EET)

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, Dancer Vesperman wrote:
> Keith Moore wrote:
> > Keith
> Agree. Unless your IT-plan is one of those organic messes, it's no 
> biggie. A couple of minutes per machine usually suffices, with some 
> slightly longer times where there are spaghetti systems installed. It 
> certainly takes less time than the network vendor trying to figure out 
> why their system isn't working, in my experience.

Renumbering is MUCH more than just changing addresses in _your_ systems.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords