IPv6 Enterprise Network Renumbering Scenarios, Considerations, and Methods
RFC 6879

[Ballot comment]
Minor suggestion: the "Information Refresh Time Option"
(RFC 4242) is useful for managing the lifetime of
configuration information provided through DHCPv6 when
a host has no leased addresses (section 4.2).

[Ballot comment]
For the record, let me cut and paste it here what has been discussed with the authors.
From the charter, I believe that this document fits the following:

  1. To undertake scenario descriptions, including documentation of
  current capability inventories and existing BCPs, for enterprise
  networks, including managed and unmanaged elements. These texts should
  contribute towards a gap analysis and provide an agreed basis for
  subsequent WG rechartering towards development of solutions (which may
  be more appropriate for other WGs to undertake) and improved practices.
  Operator input will be of high value for this text.

Reading this reading, I asked myself: what is the specific scope of this
document? I see a mix of scenarios, listing of the existing solutions,
best current practices (corrected btw in the version 5), etc... and
I'm wondering where this document
fits in all the IPv6 documents renumbering documents: RFC 5887, this
document, Enterprise IPv6 Deployment Guidelines
draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-01, rfc4192, etc...
By "etc", I mean searching for "renum" in
https://www.ietf.org/download/rfc-index.txt.
It seems that many of these documents have the same type of content. Too
many actually. Don't get me wrong, there is good text in this document.

Bottom line: if someone is interested in renumbering, what is the
ordered list of documents to be read, with the respective content. My
conclusion is that there will be a lot of overlap. I would happy to
stand corrected.

Note: I did my home work trying to find the answer: read RFC 5887,
      listened to the IETF 85 meeting recording, etc...

Answer from Brian Carpenter

    This is a tricky point. RFC 5887 could probably never have been developed
    by a WG - in fact it was a non-IAB revisit of an IAB document (RFC 1900).
    And it succeeded, because 6renum was chartered. But 6renum was not
    chartered to design solutions or even to write a cookbook. I believe
    that the nature of the present draft is only to describe the situation
    and the existing tools.

    At some point the IESG will be given draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis
    which "briefly introduces the existing mechanisms that could
    be utilized for IPv6 site renumbering and tries to cover most of the
    explicit issues and requirements of IPv6 renumbering. Through the gap
    analysis, the document provides a basis for future works..."

    I think that the whole picture will be clearer then - and the IESG
    will hopefully decide which of the gaps require IETF action.

    draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 may also help to answer
    your question.

While the draft improves from version 4 to 5, for example by removing the BCP, I'm not totally convinced by the usefulness of this yet-another document. However, I won't get in the way of its publication. Specifically because my concern is not really actionable at this point in time.


EDITORIAL:
Dynamic Host configuration Protocol -> Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol

[Ballot comment]

Just wondering - would use of e.g. amazon EC2 or equivalent
might be relevant for any of this, e.g. if the service
provider for such a thing used IPv6 addresses for access
controls or something.  Maybe that's theoretical for now
though or you don't consider that part of an enterprise
network, either of which seem reasonable.

[Ballot comment]
I have no objection to the publication of this document, but I do have a question (that is not DISCUSS worthy).

The primary focus of this document appears to be the actual address configuration issues surrounding a renumbering event.  While DNS, ACLs, and firewall rules are briefly mentioned, I am curious as to the lack of mention, in any detail, of text-based configuration files.  Was that aspect considered?

[Ballot discuss]
I have no general objection about the publication of this document, but there is one sentence which is broken:

Section 5., paragraph 1:

>    As noted, a site that is listed by IP address in a black list can
>    escape that list by renumbering itself.

  I do not see this as any useful recommendation on how to get out
  of black listing.
  Technically, this approach is feasible, but there typically reasons why
  a site got black listed and changing the IP prefix will solve this. The
  new prefix might be back on a black list rather soon, if the actual root
  cause for being added to such a list isn't removed in that site.
  On the other hand, the cost for renumbering will be typically much
  larger than the cost of getting off the black list.

[Ballot discuss]
I have no general objection about the publication of this document, but there is one sentence which is broken:

Section 5., paragraph 1:

>    As noted, a site that is listed by IP address in a black list can
>    escape that list by renumbering itself.

  I do not see this as any useful recommendation on how to get out
  of black listing.
  Technically, this approach is feasible, but there typically reasons why a site got black listed and changing the IP prefix will solve this, but the new prefix might be back on a black list rather soon, if the actual root cause isn't removed in that site. On the other hand, the cost for renumbering will be typically much larger than the cost of getting off the black list.

[Ballot comment]
Section 4.1., paragraph 28:

>      For ND, Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND, [RFC3971]) is a possible
>      solution, but it is complex and there's almost no real deployment
>      so far. Comparing the non-trivial deployment of SEND, RA guard
>      [RFC6105] is a light-weight alternative, which focuses on rogue
>      router advertisements proof in a L2 network. However, it also
>      hasn't been widely deployed since it hasn't been published for
>      long.

  I would add to this paragraph "at the time when this memo was
  published". The situation for SEND and RA guard can change, isn't it?

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-04, which is currently in Last Call,
and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Enterprise Network Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Site Renumbering WG
(6renum) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Enterprise Network Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document analyzes events that cause renumbering and describes
  the best renumbering practice. Best practices are described in three
  categories: those applicable during network design, those applicable
  during preparation for renumbering, and those applicable during the
  renumbering operation.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational, as stated in the header, because it presents (as the title says), Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document analyzes enterprise renumbering events and describes
  the best current practice among the existing renumbering mechanisms.
  Considerations and best current practices are described in three
  categories: during network design, for preparation of renumbering,
  and during a renumbering operation.
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough?
Very little controversy. 
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
RJ Atkinson did an especially thorough review during WGLC.

Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Shepherd: Lee Howard. 
AD: Ron Bonica

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I provided significant suggestions to earlier versions, and have reread the current version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
No concerns.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
No IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is strong consensus throughout the WG.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No nits.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
N/A.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references are published RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
N/A, document is Informational.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.
N/A
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
No IANA considerations.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No IANA considerations.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
N/A