[104617] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed May 21 16:09:09 2008
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:08:48 -0400
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <003601c8bb75$46d856d0$f211a8c0@flamwsugsmul5v>
Reply-To: deepak@ai.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a
pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter
prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your
allocations were perfect from the get-go.
We've all been to the other, more realistic place, no?
While we all feel pain for folks who have to do renumbers, even if EVERY
single host in there is a MAJOR dns server (which is my personal worst
case) for MAJOR sites, even *that* has become much easier to address
than it used to be.
This is probably rhetorical, but I feel like some threshold of
materiality should be roughly described so Operators don't get whipsawed
over variable length renumbers longer than a certain length.
DJ
