| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
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
