On Sep 13, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
This RFC identified a couple of opportunities:
4. Call to Action for the IETF
The more automated one can make the renumbering process, the better
for everyone. Sadly, there are several mechanisms that either have
not been automated or have not been automated consistently across
platforms.
4.1. Dynamic Updates to DNS Across Administrative Domains
4.2. Management of the Reverse Zone
Have these holes been filled in during the past couple of years?
No.
While some might point to existing renumbering RFCs, speaking from
the perspective of my employer, Cisco doesn't think it makes
operational sense. What it handles is the special case in which an
administration
- wants to change its /48 ISP prefix for another /48 ISP prefix,
- both are exactly 48 bits long (no /56 prefixes or any other
length allowed), and
- in which there is no intent to change the subnet part of the prefix.
In our opinion, changing between a /48 and a /56 (or a /56 and a /52,
or any other combination) is a pretty reasonable thing to want to do.
Further, whenever Cisco renumbers its IPv4 network (which it does
with some regularity it seems), we change the allocation of subnet
prefixes. we recover what we can, re-organize, and re-deploy.
So we think the current solution is operationally useless. To my
knowledge, we haven't heard from our customers that they want it. As
such, we have no current plan to implement it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf