RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

["Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan () verisign com>]

> -----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! ]


>