Skip to main content

IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:


From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Cc: RFC Editor <>,
    6renum mailing list <>,
    6renum chair <>
Subject: Document Action: 'IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IPv6 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis'
  (draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-08.txt) as Informational RFC

This document is the product of the IPv6 Site Renumbering Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This document presents a review of mechanisms that could be used for 
IPv6 site renumbering, analysing them for gaps in tools, protocols and 
procedures. In undertaking the gap analysis, the document gives pointers 
to future work that is required to improve renumbering operations, while 
it also lists issues which it may not be possible to solve.

Working Group Summary

There is no significant controversy on the gap-analysis draft. Most 
issues were teased out through review of the draft-ietf-6renum-enterpris 
draft, which was recently sent to the IESG. 

One gap that was identified in that review, which needs to be clarified 
in 7.3, is that appropriate monitoring of the renumbering process is 
needed to ensure it completes as intended, e.g. to look for old prefixes 
in use.

There was some discussion as to whether "parameterised ip-specific 
configuration" is the best phrase to use to talk about introducing wider 
use of macros, etc. The phrase is a little clumsy, but no one as yet has 
suggested anything better.

There was some discussion on DNS tools in the draft-ietf-6renum-
enterprise review. In particular about wider deployment of Dynamic DNS 
support. This illustrates that some gaps are due to lack of deployment 
of tools that *could* be used, but are not due to that lack of 

It may be useful to add a section listing the identified gaps more 
explicitly; the work that has been identified to date is captured in 
draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 (which is not intended to be taken 
forward, rather be an inventory of work items to progress 

There was some discussion of router renumbering. RFC2894 is old (August 
2000) and has not as far as we're aware been used, and it is unlikely 
that it would ever be used. A more appropriate approach may fall under 
'Unified Configuration Management' as described in 6.3. A small 
clarification may be beneficial.

Note revision  due to IETF last call comments is the 06 version.

Document Quality

There has been a reasonable number of reviews for a document of this 
type, which have led to it being in its fifth version since WG adoption. 
I have notified the authors of a small number of grammatical errors, 
which will be processed along with IESG comments.


Shepherd: Tim Chown 
AD: (was Ron Bonica) is now Joel Jaeggli

RFC Editor Note