On 2012-04-04 01:01, Doug Barton wrote: > On 4/3/2012 1:25 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote: >> But of course, I'm always delighted to hear your opinions. Is renumbering *really* that big of a deal? I suppose multihoming is the bigger, more serious concern - that's the one we see no viable solution but NAT for, given small site constraints and aggregation. And yet, here we are, on our way to flipping the big switch, and nobody seems to be in much of a panic. > > Some of us have been saying these things for 10+ years, and continue to > grumble them audibly periodically just in case someone might listen this > time. > > Regardless of how it might offend the sensibilities of some (and however > misguided their reasoning might be), People Like NAT. Failure to learn > from the reasons why makes us more irrelevant day by day. > > ... and yes, renumbering IS that big a deal. We could go on having this argument, or we could take constructive steps to deal with the new flexibility that we have gained from IPv6, which indeed leads to new problems to solve as we start to use that flexibility. Oh look, we have WGs tackling those problems: MIF, HOMENET, 6RENUM, and of course V6OPS. Brian