From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Hannigan, Martin
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:34 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]> 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.
Correction: LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of
the Numbering Plan and was required.
[ Sorry for the typo, second in as many days. Doh! ]