Right. Exactly. But UNTIL such time as easy renumbering for everyone is
People have known that renumbering technology was extremely important
since the first CIDR drafts came out. What has happened in the
intervening time? Precious little -- there has been little to no
incentive for the R&D necessary as it was always easier and cheaper
to get a big block from the registries.
You might look at SprintLink's filtering as something of an incentive.
Now that there is an incentive for people to investigate renumbering
technologies (e.g., provider based addressing), architecturally
heretical and impure NATs and ALGs are popping up like the vile weeds
that they are (:-)). Heck, there is even an IETF working group looking
into the issue. Why has it taken 7(?) years for the creation of that
I'm doomed to renumbering in the event that
provider can't provide me with all the service I need, and I can't subject
my customers to that.
Um, have you asked them? From ancedotal evidence, it seems that only a
small minority of customers go into convulsions when you whisper the word
'renumber'. Don't force it on them, make it worth their while, e.g., offer
them a discount or something.
I forsee a large number of new /19's filled with fictitious
entities, followed immediately by the application for an additional, larger,
As if this was new...
and if we're concerned about the efficient use of address space
(and not just routing table size) that's a serious waste.
That was my original contribution to this thread. This isn't
surprising, it is simply the result of the "tragedy of the Internet