Re: [RRG] Consensus check: renumbering - missing dimension

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

As someone running a dual-stack v6 enterprise (smallish), I think I
agree with everything written in the last few posts.

Brian says that enterprises will want DHCPv6, for the reasons Dale says
(SLAAC being 'distasteful' and the complexity of privacy addresses), but
also DHCP is the model that admins are comfortable with today, and change
is always viewed warily.   Admins will believe that DHCP provides an easier
way to tie addresses to users.

I agree with Brian that the key thing about RFC4192 is that end systems
can live happily in a multiaddressed state during a 'graceful' renumbering
event, no need for that flag day cutover.   But as Eliot says, the
complexity isn't in the end systems, it's in the other devices in the
network, which is where we need some level of automation as described
by Iljitsch.   In the past, Router Renumbering was suggested, but there
were a number of problems with that.

I think also that network management/monitoring tools need to be enhanced
to understand renumbering events, e.g. perhaps to detect if certain hosts
are not in the correct phase of RFC4192.   The event could ideally be 
triggerable and configurable from such a tool.   But that implies the
tool also drives DNS scripts, firewall configurations, etc too.

-- 
Tim



--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg