Re: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt

Lea Roberts wrote:
> David (et al) -
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> 
> 
>>Brian,
>>
>>On Jul 19, 2005, at 2:42 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>>3. I think it would be useful to add a note that if a site
>>>starts out with a /56, migrating later to a /48, if needed,
>>>would be fairly painless (no need to reorganize existing subnets).
>
>>To be explicit, this would only be painless if /56 were allocated in
>>such a way as it would be growable to a /48.
>>
> 
> I took Brian's point to be that the subnet organization would not have to
> be changed, only the prefix, when moving from a /56 to a new /48.    /Lea

Exactly. My view has always been that IPv6 prefixes *will* change from
time to time, so sites had better get used to it. But that is much less
work than having to re-organize subnet structures, OSPF setups, etc.

(This is one of the reasons RFC 3177 argued strongly for a default
site prefix length, in fact. A more general version of that argument
is indeed that getting a longer prefix from an ISP is OK, but getting
a shorter prefix is not. Hmm. Moving from a ULA or 6to4 prefix to
a /56 could be a pain.)

draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05.txt applies.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6