[75676] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sat Nov 20 07:25:48 2004
In-Reply-To: <2147483647.1100857253@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:25:17 +0100
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 19-nov-04, at 18:40, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
Well, the old saying is that there is no problem in computer science
that can't be solved by adding a layer of indirection. Apparently this
applies to telephone networks as well, because your phone number is no
longer an address these days: it's more like a domain name. When you
dial a number it's looked up in a big database to see where the call
should go to.
And don't forget that you still have to change your phone number when
you move a great enough distance. In IP we somehow feel it's important
that there are no geographical constraint on address use at all. That's
a shame, because even if we aggregate by contintent that would save up
to four times in the number of entries in the routing table of any
router.
