Re: (v6ops) WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-00.txt (fwd)

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

The working group last call has closed, and the only issue that I saw was
the issue of ingress filtering affecting a temporarily homed network.
Personally, I'm not sure that was not covered in section 3.3:

3.3  Ingress Filtering

   An important consideration in Section 2.3, in the case where the
   network being renumbered is connected to an external provider, the
   network's ingress filtering policy and its provider's ingress
   filtering policy.  Both the network firewall's ingress filter and the
   provider's ingress filter on the access link to the network should be
   configured to prevent attacks that use source address spoofing.
   Ingress filtering is considered in detail in "Ingress Filtering for
   Multihomed Networks" [RFC3704].

but I have added the following to the introduction:

1.4  Multihoming Issues

   In addition to the considerations presented, the operational matters
   of multihoming may need to be addressed.  Networks are generally
   renumbered for one of three reasons: the network itself is changing
   its addressing policy and must renumber to implement the new policy
   (for example, a company has been acquired and is changing addresses
   to those used by its new owner), an upstream provider has changed its
   prefixes and its customers are forced to do so at the same time, or a
   company is changing providers and must perforce use addresses
   assigned by the new provider.  The third case is common.

   When a company changes providers, it is common to institute an
   overlap period, during which it is served by both providers.  By
   definition, the network is multihomed during such a period.  While
   this document is not about multihoming per se, problems can arise as
   a result of ingress filtering policies applied by the upstream
   provider or one of its upstream providers, so the user of this
   document need also be cognizant of these issues.  This is discussed
   in detail, and approaches to dealing with it are described, in
   [RFC2827] and [RFC3704].

If this is deemed a sufficient change, I think the documents at

    ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/v6ops/renumber.html
    ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/v6ops/renumber.txt
    ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/fred/v6ops/renumber.xml

may be considered responsive to the WG last call. I will put in a note to
internet-drafts to post them on Monday barring further comment, and request
the chairs to forward them to the IESG.