[75645] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannigan, Martin)
Fri Nov 19 13:41:48 2004
From: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:41:22 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> 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?]
>
>
>
> > -----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.
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! ]
>
>
