Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 19:37, Philip Homburg <[e-mail]> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> Reality is that ISPs do flash renumbering for IPv4 customers.

Why?

Between 2005 and 2011, I worked for two residential ISPs, one state
based with 80 000 customers, and another national one, with 160 000
customers. In all that time, I never needed to or saw anybody
intentionally "flash renumber" as far as I can remember.

The only time I can see a need to purposefully "flash renumber" would
be if you want to shift around IP address pools across to different
BRASes. I don't think that is a common event. (The common event was
adding new IP addresses to existing per-BRAS pools, as customer
numbers grew.)

So I would like to hear from ISPs that purposely "flash renumber" why
they do so, and how often.


People are trying to continue to use the decades old dial up model.
That's understandable - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It could be
carried over from dial to residential broadband IPv4+NAT, because
there were enough similarities. The problem is that it is broken when
applied to IPv6.

You don't keep using old solutions and ideas when they start to cause
too many problems, and require too many work arounds to keep using
them. Too many problems caused by the old method and too many work
arounds to overcome them is a sign the old solution is really beyond
its useful life and a new solution is necessary.

>We can tell them
> that they cannot do that for IPv6, but that will result either in a delay
> of IPv6 deployment, or they will find a hack (such as NAT66) to make it 'work'.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops