[104633] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McMasters, Jeremy)
Wed May 21 21:18:09 2008
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 21:17:44 -0400
In-Reply-To: <48348150.4020504@ai.net>
From: "McMasters, Jeremy" <JMcMasters@atlanticbb.com>
To: <deepak@ai.net>, "nanog list" <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I worked for an ISP that was bought by another ISP and had to assign all
new IP's roughly a /16 worth. Good times. Only one ASN thank goodness
-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak@ai.net]=20
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:09 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?
Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a=20
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=20
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=20
case) for MAJOR sites, even *that* has become much easier to address=20
than it used to be.
This is probably rhetorical, but I feel like some threshold of=20
materiality should be roughly described so Operators don't get whipsawed
over variable length renumbers longer than a certain length.
DJ
