On Jul 4, 2008, at 3:06 AM, ericlklein@softhome.net wrote:
David Conrad writes:This independence would be as easily served by changing the v6 prefix and keeping the /64 addresses the same. This kind of renumbering has been built into v6.On Jul 3, 2008, at 12:54 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:there won't be any motivation for NAT.Provider independence.
Not really. Ask any non-trivial enterprise network operator or simply look at the rationales for the push at _all_ the RIRs for provider independent IPv6 allocation policies. IPv6 may make renumbering somewhat easier than IPv4, but it does not solve the issue. Filters, firewalls, network management systems, domain name servers, registries, and registrars are all just some of the places in which IPv6 literal addresses will get transcribed and have to be changed in the face of a prefix renumbering event. Because renumbering IPv6 prefixes will not be transparent, there will be a market for NATv6. The only question is whether the downsides of NATv6 will be sufficient to deter its use. Since people have been trained to accept NATv4, I am somewhat skeptical the vast majority of users will rebel against NATv6.
Regards, -drc