Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 09:09:43 CET 2013
On 11/02/2013 18:31, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 02/11/2013 10:22 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 11/02/2013 17:26, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2013 06:09 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>> Any organisation that cares enough about renumbering
>>>> implications of changing provider should be able to obtain/afford
>>> The fact that this is demonstrably untrue has been demonstrated many
>> Can you cite the evidence for that? I've seen exactly the opposite
>> assertion recently too, and I am curious to know the facts of the
> You mean other than the dozens of times operators have made the
> statement that they care about renumbering?
No. I mean your apparent denial that organisations "should be able to obtain/afford
Of course I know that sites don't like renumbering. I presided over two site
renumberings during my misspent youth and I am an author of RFC 5887 and
several 6renum drafts, so you can take it that I grok the problem.
For most enterprises,
> _especially_ the medium sized ones that fall into the category between
> "small enough that renumbering isn't a problem" and "large enough to
> have dedicated IT staff to handle it" this is a huge concern, and one of
> the chief benefits of NATv4.
> If all the times it has come up on IETF lists, NANOG, etc. don't do it
> for you, my current day job involves working with enterprise customers
> dealing with DNS/DHCP/IPAM. And that's enterprises of sizes small'ish
> all the way up to multinationals. They all care about renumbering, and
> dealing with the pain of it (even from one 1918 block to a different
> one) is one of the reasons they hire us.
> NAT is the common case, even on the production side nowadays. In
> addition to the perceived security benefits, ease of renumbering
> external address space is right up there in the top 2. For us not to
> acknowledge this reality only serves to slow the pace of IPv6 adoption.
More information about the ipv6-ops