Re: A common problem with SLAAC in "renumbering" scenarios

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 2/5/19 3:11 PM, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
> On 05/02/2019 18:54, Lee Howard wrote:
>>>> Ideally every customer just gets a static /48. There is no 
>>>> technical reason
>>>> why this can't be made to work.
>>>
>>> Agreed 100% :)
>>
>>
>> I cordially invite you to go build your own network, so you will 
>> actually be able to tell somebody how to build their network.
>
> I did. Many times.

And yet when somebody says "I built my network for reasons that were 
compelling to me at the time" you tell them they did it wrong. It's 
tiresome.

Even when someone does engage in conversation and begin explaining 
reasons, it always becomes a rathole of all of the unique considerations 
of that network with those vendors and this budget and some other 
requirements at the time in question. Rebuilding a functioning network 
is costly and breaks things.

If you were a network operator reading the latter part of this thread, 
would you be inclined to participate in this working group or in the IETF?

>
> He said "Ideally". I agree with that :)

Static? That was fine when there were few enough nodes that you could 
manually configure changes. Addressing is dynamic, which is why we have 
dynamic routing protocols.

Jan, I'm replying to you because we're friends and I know we will remain 
so. When I say "you" here, I don't just mean you.

Lee


>
> Cheers, Jan
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------