Subject: [rrg] Fwd: RFC 5887 on Renumbering Still Needs Work

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 21:56:02 -0400

This newly minted RFC might be interesting to some here.

Bottom line is that things are better now than they were 
in the past, but still aren't where we'd like them to be
(==> relative to ease of renumbering).

Yours,

Ran

Begin forwarded message:
> From: [email-masked]
> Date: 27 May 2010 14:26:47 EDT
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RFC 5887 on Renumbering Still Needs Work
> mime-version: 1.0
> content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> sender: [email-masked]
> errors-to: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
> 
> 
>        RFC 5887
> 
>        Title:      Renumbering Still Needs Work 
>        Author:     B. Carpenter, R. Atkinson,
>                    H. Flinck
>        Status:     Informational
>        Stream:     IETF
>        Date:       May 2010
>        Mailbox:    [email-masked], 
>                    [email-masked], 
>                    [email-masked]
>        Pages:      35
>        Characters: 87131
>        Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
> 
>        I-D Tag:    draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-05.txt
> 
>        URL:        http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5887.txt
> 
> This document reviews the existing mechanisms for site renumbering
> for both IPv4 and IPv6, and it identifies operational issues with
> those mechanisms.  It also summarises current technical proposals for
> additional mechanisms.  Finally, there is a gap analysis identifying
> possible areas for future work.  This document is not an Internet 
> Standards Track specification; it is published for informational 
> purposes.
> 
> 
> INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community.
> It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
> this memo is unlimited.