[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

Yes, there certainly does need to be communication, and this does  
effect our downstreams or colo folks who use our numbers -- I didn't  
fix all of the difficulties, but we did find ways to make some of  
them go a way and make the job somewhat easier. Not a no-effort  
solution, but a reduced-effort one.

On Sep 17, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:

>
> Cort,
> 	Wouldn't both of your examples have the same difficulty no
> matter how the network was renumbered?  Devices outside of ones  
> control
> are just that, and if you change your PI/PA space they are going to  
> need
> to be adjusted by their local admin, by that admin's policy.  This  
> 'may'
> be ameliorated by using DNS for resolution, but again, that is the
> admin's policy to decide.
> 	Connected networks need communication between admins for smooth
> connectivity during transitions..
> Kevin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 10:59 AM
>> To: Cort Buffington
>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>>
>> Please expand on the following details of your ease of renumbering:
>>
>> 	1.	How many VPNs did you have terminating on devices in the
>> 		space you renumbered at one end with the other
>> end terminating
>> 		on devices you did not control?
>>
>> 	2.	How many external organizations had firewalls
>> you don't control
>> 		with policies containing your addresses when
>> you renumbered?
>>
>> If your answers to questions 1 and 2 are zero or near zero,
>> then, I would argue that you have not demonstrated a
>> meaningful difference in the effort required to renumber IPv6
>> vs. IPv4.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Cort Buffington wrote:
>>
>>> My organization recently changed IPv6 numbers. We had used EUI64
>>> addressing on servers and used a "subnetting" scheme that
>> was logical
>>> and sustainable. It did not require actually touching any
>> servers to
>>> change IPs. It was done as such: Add IP prefix to
>> appropriate router
>>> interfaces, run find-replace script to fix prefixes in DNS, wait,
>>> remove old IP prefixes from router interfaces.
>>>
>>> While I  am not trying to diminish the valid conversation about
>>> difficulties involved in renumbering, etc., I am actually
>> doing, and
>>> have done this. IPv6 is not IPv4, and there are some aspects of it
>>> that change the ways things are/can be done. In our experience, the
>>> largest hurdle involved in using IPv6 effectively is
>> getting folks to
>>> break out of the IPv4 way of thinking. With larger address
>> spaces come
>>> the ability to address interfaces, etc. in a more logical way, that
>>> when added to some of the nice things like EUI64
>> addressing, can make
>>> "re-numbering" considerably easier.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm...Now...what was that long drawn out conversation....that
>>>> addressed private space in a good way.....oh yeah!  ULA-C!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>> Marla
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net
>> [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf
>>>> Of Brian Johnson
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 7:00 AM
>>>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt; Kevin Kargel; ppml at arin.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 flawed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ted wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand it because you are large enough to have your
>>>>> own allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the orgs too small to meet justification requirements
>> to get a
>>>>> direct allocation of IPv6 from an RIR, it is a big problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> They do not want to get IPv6 from an ISP AKA "local internet
>>>>> registry"
>>>>> and put time and money into numbering all their servers
>> and suchlike
>>>>> - because if they find a better deal down the street from
>> the ISP's
>>>>> (I mean local internet registry's) competitor, they want
>> to be free
>>>>> to dump the existing ISP and go to the competitor without
>> having to
>>>>> renumber internally.
>>>>>
>>>>> This IMHO is the single largest reason so many orgs adopted NAT.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Ted that there is a noticeable benefit to having NAT
>>>> capability, but not that it is the "single largest reason so many
>>>> orgs adopted NAT." It does act as a pseudo-security
>> feature, and it
>>>> does make a network "portable".
>>>>
>>>> I would have no problem with a say a /32 of IPv6 being set
>> aside as
>>>> "private space." This will only increase the longevity of
>> IPv6 when
>>>> used by companies who only need limited IP addresses and
>> want to use
>>>> private space and NAT. What arguments are there against this?
>>>>
>>>> - Brian
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
>> to the ARIN
>>>> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact
>> the ARIN
>>>> Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any
>>>> issues.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PPML
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
>> to the ARIN
>>>> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact
>> the ARIN
>>>> Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cort Buffington
>>> Assistant Director for Technical Services The Kansas Research and
>>> Education Network cort at kanren.net
>>> Office: +1-785-856-9800 x301
>>> Mobile: +1-785-865-7206
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
>> to the ARIN
>>> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
>>> Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any
>>> issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact
>> the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you
>> experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN  
> Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

--
Cort Buffington
Assistant Director for Technical Services
The Kansas Research and Education Network
cort at kanren.net
Office: +1-785-856-9800 x301
Mobile: +1-785-865-7206