I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Sep 27 23:24:36 CEST 2010

On 9/26/2010 4:11 PM, Paul Timmins wrote:
> 3) Unless the customer is ubiquitously running DHCPv6, changing things
> like their active directory servers and other things is very, very risky
> for their network stability. To say nothing of things like medical
> diagnostic equipment and other weird and esoteric devices on customer
> networks we come across all the time which undoubtedly have hardcoded
> addresses in them for one reason or another, for reasons good or bad.
> Most of our customers can barely hack running one set of valid
> addresses, having ULA and public will be confusing as hell for them.

So this is one more strong argument for IPv6 PI in as many places as 
humanly possible.

Please note that I am not suggesting that this is a "fire and forget" 
solution, I'm aware that even in IPv6-topia there will still be 
renumbering due to organizational changes (e.g., mergers and 
acquisitions) but we really should be focusing on IPv6 PI as the answer, 
not as the problem.



	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list