[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nanog
Subject:    RE: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7
From:       "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven ! com>
Date:       2010-10-31 19:23:10
Message-ID: 5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14C656 () RWC-EX1 ! corp ! seven ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


> 
> Seems to me the options are:
> 
> 1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing
> table bloat
> 2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing
> table bloat
> 3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost,
no
> routing table bloat
> 

In my particular case, IPv6 offers no advantage when it comes to
renumbering.  It is just exactly as difficult to renumber with v6 as it
is with v4.  I do understand that in a lot of cases where end nodes are
autoconfiguring based on RA it makes it easy but in many places that
really isn't an option.




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]