Re: Renumbering

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]