Re: draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-01

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] ¿ÀÌÀãºÈ wrote:
> I don't recall a report on router renumbering a year or two ago, but I
> did make a short presentation about our experiences in December 2000:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/00dec/00dec-53.htm#TopOfPage
>
> I'm not sure whether this is what you meant.  In any event, our
> conclusion regarding router renumbering was not that negative, but we
> thought it did not make much sense to apply this technique to large
> sites (e.g, an enterprise network).

Yes, this is what I was recalling, The "report" that triggered this 
memory is below.

==========
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 03:12:19 +0900
Message-ID: <y7visp0kt18.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: inevitability of PI
[...]
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:35:57 -0400,
> > > > > Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> said:

> Another potential advantage for IPv6 that is a little harder to quantify is
> the notion of "graceful" renumbering - the ability to have a transition
> state in which both the old and new prefixes are in use simultaneously.
> Will this transition state work in practice?  Has anyone actually tried it?

Not sure if this answers your question, but we tried site-(IPv6)renumbering
in an experimental environment 3 years ago.  In that testing, we had a
transition state with the both old and new prefixes.  The presentation
slides of a report at an IETF meeting are available at the following URL:
http://www.jinmei.org/mgp/ietf49-renumber/

                                        JINMEI, Tatuya
                                        Communication Platform Lab.
=================