On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 19:17, Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I would NAT66 my network for the simple reason that very few endpoint devicesBingo. That's exactly the reason long-term I'll probably do it too.
> actually tollerate a change in the IP address without at a minimum a service
> interruption. Since I cannot guarantee that my IPv6 address from my ISP will
> never change I am going to NAT66 my internal network for the sake of having
> static numbering inside the network.
And even this assumes that renumbering support of any kind manifests in a
useful way. The absolutely dismal state of support for IPv6 in SOHO-grade
routers is IMO one of the orimary current impediments for IPv6 deployment. And
when IPv6 support does start to show up in these boxes, I really have to wonder
if they'll get automatic renumbering right, assuming it's supported at all.
I went for something like 10 years without having to renumber, and as a result
> The more infrequent you posit the need for renumbering is, the greater my
> reluctance to allowing it will become. If you have a network event that happens
> only once a year it is going to mean a very serious disruption when it happens.
> DHCP only solves some of the problems, I am still effectively forced to perform
> a reboot, I will lose connections and this will cost me real time and money to
> fix.
IP addresses got put in all sorts of nooks and crannies on my network. Then
suddenly and without warning my ISP announced an emeergency numbering change
due to an upstream provider switch. The announcement went out at 11:00PM Sunday
night; the renumbering occurred the next morning.
It is a bit of an understatement to say I was not a happy camper. And then it
happened again a week or so later - easier because I had notes on all the stuff
that needed changing plus I'd switched to DHCP as much as possible, but still
no picnic. And then I had to renumber again when I switched ISPs ;-) But that
should be the last time because I took the opportunity to switch to 1:1 NAT and
private address space.
In any case, I think getting renumbering right and getting it deployed is an
essential step in minimizing the use of NAT66.
There are many drafts out there on renumbering, maybe we need to review them to see how they fit in this issue or if NAT would do away with the need for them. This is the analysis I am asking for.
Eric
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf