[ppml] IPv6 flawed?

[Cort Buffington]

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