(ngtrans) Re: 6BONE AUP

[Michael P. Burton]

|"Michael P. Burton" <mpburton@europa.com> writes:
|> |2) If I add a new prefix in, do I want to burn personel time dealing
|> |with the event?
|> 
|> Well, if it were plug-n-play, then we would all be out of a job, 
|> wouldn't we? (laugh) Seriously though - I guess it would be the
|> network admin's job to keep very specific notes on the usage of
|> access-lists (and other ip number dependent resources) and be
|> able to make the needed changes in a matter of hours.
|
|No. That's really unacceptable. It is fine to automate something like
|this and say "the solution is automation" (AFTER you demonstrate said
|automation), but it is *not* fine to say "the solution is burning
|human cycles". If that is the solution, then we'll never be able to
|renumber. There are companies with tens of thousands of machines and
|huge numbers of clueless managers. If they spend six hours every week
|renumbering, they'll kill us all. More importantly, they'll block the
|moves to renumber, which will destroy the whole flexibility the system
|is supposed to have.
|
|Perry

If they have to spend six hours a week renumbering, then there is probably
another major issue to be looked at that they are willing to kill us over.
The whole access-list issue is a difficult one because from my
understanding, IPv6 dosn't deal with it; it is propitary tech. I'm sure
Cisco could come up with a solution for their routers, but if you are
dealing with different kinds of routers, you are going to be pretty hosed.
But admins are going to need to be able to change their addresses on an
"as-needed"  basis, hopefully less than once a year. Do you have a
proposed solution to this issue?

_____________________________________________________________________
Michael P. Burton                                         Member:DNRC