On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 09:26:26AM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On 4 Jan 2008, at 16:32, Shane Kerr wrote:
[...]
11. Do we expect ISPs to provide reachability for a new and old
prefix concurrently when changing prefixes or do ISPs provide
long-time stable prefixes to IPv6 customers? If "no" on both, then
how do we avoid disconnected sessions on prefix changes?
Personally I like the model of providing reachability for both old
and new during renumbering. But... since an ISP only gets a few
thousand /48 at a time, they may be faced with resource scarcity,
and not have the space (GROAN!!!!).
On the whole, ISPs assign addresses for the period during which you
pay them for a service. I doubt there will be any resource scarcity
leading to revoked assignments while end-sites continue to pay for
service from their ISPs. I don't think an alternative where random /
48s move around between different ASs is a good model to promote.
Well, the scenerio I'm thinking of does not involve a new AS. For
example, if your ISP opens a new site closer to your home, they may
want to route your connectivity into the new site, which could very
well involve renumbering.
So, Ilijtsch's question is important.
I am told that today the best way to do such a migration in IPv4 is
for ISPs to pick a time to move customers to the new numbers, and use
ever-decreasing DHCP lease times to insure that users renumber as
close to that time as possible - but not to overlap the address spaces
for any time.
IPv6 was designed to be able to allow end hosts to more-or-less
painlessly migrate between addresses. I don't know if this has been
widely tested (I suspect not). Plus, unless there is some clever work
on both the ISP and customer side, a renumbering can affect the end
site.
Again, my preference is to support both old and new addresses during a
renumbering, but I don't know if IPv6 is mature enough technology,