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

[Ben Jencks]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:33, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 9/28/2010 10:37 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>
>> I think one of the key things they may not realise, probably
>> because they are just treating IPv6 as nothing more than IPv4 with
>> bigger addresses, is that there is a transition period where the old
>> addresses are phased out, potentially over a number of weeks or months.
>> They probably assume it is an instant event that doesn't give them any
>> preparation time to manage the process of e.g. updating ACLs, router
>> interface configurations etc.
>
> A) Add "years" to your list of time periods. Just because an enterprise gets
> v6 doesn't mean their v4 magically goes away, and
>
> B) Do you have *any* evidence for this perspective at all? Because I'm not
> seeing it (the perspective you describe that is).

Doug,

I think Mark is talking about renumbering from one v6 prefix to
another, not about v4 to v6 migration. Specifically, the idea that you
can add the new v6 prefix to your network, run both prefixes on all
your hosts as you bring the new one up to full functionality, and only
then remove the old one as a renumbering strategy.

I'd like to add that while this may have been designed in from the
beginning, v6 stacks these days still are not completely functional
when multihomed on a single interface. There are a few internet drafts
out there that provide most of a solution, but they're not RFCs yet,
and they're certainly very far from implementation. Specifically,
source address selection is fairly broken in most cases, and the
proposed solution is to give the hosts better information (which
source prefix to use for which destinations) through DHCP.

-Ben