> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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! ] > >