![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
In theory (where theory == reductio ad absurdum), renumbering is just a network and host management problem. In practice, while SLAAC and prefix delegation address some (I'll wager a fairly small percentage; for that matter, DHCPv4 addressed the host renumbering problem years ago) renumbering problems, most of the places where IP addresses are configured were never designed with renumbering or any sort of "signaling" in mind, and will be very difficult to automate.
- Ralph On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,2:11 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 2 dec 2008, at 20:02, Scott Brim wrote:One way to fix that would be multipath transport protocols. Rather than try to guess what works best, just use all of them (or at least several)and get better performance without having to make difficult choices.This doesn't help with site renumbering problems, just endpoint renumbering.NAT also helps very little with renumbering. The only thing that it buys you is that you don't have to renumber routers and other devices that have their addresses configured staticially sitting behind the NAT. But routers can receive prefixes over DHCPv6 and then use those prefixes to number their stuff rather than have this done by hand, so there is _very_ little need for static address configuration._______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.