Subject: RE: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format drafts

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:58:40 -0700

Editorial:
Interaction with routing.............Error! Bookmark not defined.

My $0.02 about it:
As an end customer, I don't find it as appealing as an IPv4 PI block.
There is something about IPv4 PI blocks that you kind of "own" the
address space. Large corporations that have (with or without a valid
reason) a tendency to geographically relocate would have to re-number.

Michel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 11:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: (ngtrans) Update to Provider Independent addressing format
drafts

The updates to the provider independent address format & usage drafts
are available at:
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-fmt-01.txt
http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-01.txt

The usage document has been significantly reworked to address both
direct comments, as well as distillation of key issues from various mail
threads on nanog & multi6 lists. At this point comments should be
directed to the multi6 list.

Tony

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:20:03 -0400

>  Large corporations that have (with or without a valid

if you're doing a massive relocation in physical space, the renumbering 
of your IP network doesn't seem like a huge additional burden.

Keith

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:56:39 +0200 (CEST)

> of your IP network doesn't seem like a huge additional burden.

The physical relocation might me relatively minor.
For instance, large corporations might choose to define one place
(e.g. one building on one of many campuses) as the coordinates as the
single place that defines the IP address prefix for the whole company
yet that building might house much less than 1% of the company's IP devices
and people.

This means that giving up the lease on that single building will cause all
IP devices to renumber yet the costs due to the physical relocation are
small.

  Erik

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:33:03 -0400

> IP devices to renumber yet the costs due to the physical relocation are

seems like a stretch.  as long as the company retained some network presence 
in that area it should be able to keep that prefix.

though if the company decided to completely shut down its operations at that
area (not an entirely unusual occurance) it could indeed require the entire
company to reunumber.

having your entire company under a single prefix might turn out to be bad
planning in an IPv6 world.  

Keith

---

From: Matt Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 09:31:13 -0500

(Do so many lists really need to be cc'd?)

> in that area it should be able to keep that prefix.

It seems to me that a Wall Street prefix would not be announced by
(or accepted by peers of) an upstream provider in Chicago, or perhaps
even Connecticut.  So traffic using the Wall Street PI prefix might
actually have to be routed through some location in New York.  This
might be impractical.