Re: [GLOBAL-V6] IPV4 to IPv6 migration

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-06-03 10:14, David Conrad wrote:

(snipping out the bits where we are likely to repeat ourselves)
...
> In addition, in both IPv4 and IPv6, a renumbering event implies
> disrupted communications (particularly since the actual IP addresses are
> 'cached' in applications) and some folks care about that.

Of course they do. That's why the IPv6 model is to add a new prefix
some time before removing the old one, to avoid disruption (RFC 4192).

I'm toying with the idea of positively advocating a ULA
prefix as the *preferred* prefix for all internal purposes
(especially network management). Then, adding and removing
PA prefixes would not impact internal operations (especially
network management) in any way.

There also, afaics, nothing stopping an IPv6 site using a PI prefix
simultaneously with one or more PA prefixes, if some but not all
ISPs are willing to announce the PI space.

   Brian