[75644] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Fri Nov 19 13:34:42 2004
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:34:16 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
