Subject: Food for thought

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:50:15 +0200

Please don't start a discussion of renumbering here, but I think
many of the operational considerations about adding and dropping
prefixes in the referenced draft are likely to apply also to
any multihoming solution.

     Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-01.txt
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 15:34:14 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day
	Author(s)	: F. Baker, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-01.txt
	Pages		: 24
	Date		: 2004-7-9
	
This document describes the steps in a procedure that can be used to
transition from the use of an existing prefix to a new prefix in a
network. It uses IPv6's intrinsic ability to assign multiple
addresses to a network interface to provide continuity of network
service through a make-before-break transition, as well as addressing naming and configuration management issues. It also uses 
other IPv6 features to minimize the effort and time required to complete the transition from the old prefix to the new prefix.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-01.txt

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:35:13 +0200

> any multihoming solution.

Which part of the draft are you referring to?

It seems to me the more natural flow of information would be in the 
other direction. (But Fred doesn't want that.)

---

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:05:53 -0700

Iljitsch and all,

  Well what Fred Baker wants he usually gets despite the lack of
openness and transparency such desires may engender and the lack
of serious discussion that may be important.

> other direction. (But Fred doesn't want that.)

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:48:11 +0200

> other direction. (But Fred doesn't want that.)

Fred wants to publish an RFC that describes current reality, and that's
fine. But we're an Ops area WG, and regardless of which technical solution
we adopt, there will be a need for a lot of operational guidance. I think
it will be very similar - what does a site have to do when it adds or
drops a prefix? I'm referring to the whole draft; which parts of it will
*not* apply to multihomed sites?

    Brian