[104622] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Wed May 21 16:38:32 2008
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:38:14 -0400
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <483482D5.9010006@davidcoulson.net>
Reply-To: deepak@ai.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
David Coulson wrote:
> Deepak Jain wrote:
>> 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.
> Depends - If you're an Enterprise where 90% of the equipment is managed
> by people who work in the same building, it's not horrible. I renumbered
> a bunch of /20s onto a /18 where 75% of the equipment was not in my (or
> the company's) control. That sucked big time.
>
Right, but a /20 is a /lot/ more space than a /24. I think I'd say that
shorter than a /21 is certainly a decent threshold of pain (personally).
Even if its all in-house.
There are ways to make it less painful and special painless cases (an
all NAT space), but as a shot-in-the-dark, that's a pretty good bet [you
almost certainly have a decent mix of network and server gear, different
authorities, different topologies, etc]
DJ
