North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Hannigan, Martin
  • Date: Fri Nov 19 13:35:25 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:41 PM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Jeroen Massar
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
> 
> 
> 
> > Now I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but having unaggregatable
> > globally routable address space just doesn't scale and there are no
> > routing tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in 
> the IP version
> > bits, so learn to love renumbering.
> >
> This is patently false.  If it were true, then I would have 
> to renumber
> every time I changed telephone companies.  I don't, so, 
> obviously, there
> is some solution to this problem.  Now I'm not saying that I 
> necessarily
> want to accept the overhead and risks of SS7 to solve this, but, there
> are, obviously, routing tricks that can be used.

Tricks reduce reliability and create unecessary dependancies. 

LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of V4 so a trick 
was required.