On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:27:17PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> There are two that I can point you at, and perhaps the temporal
> difference would be at least amusing:
>
>* Renumbering: Threat or Menace?, Lear, Katinsky, Tharp, et al,
> Proceedings of the Tenth Systems Administration Co
On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits.
assuming that all prefixes are 48 bits long, fine. Guess
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:11 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I think there has been hype on both sides of this question. Router
renumbering used to be VERY annoying. I've now published several
times
on the subject
Any links to the papers?
A paper which in-my-non-humble-opinion covers a lot of the
Michael,
I totally understand the concern over circular dependencies. They are
not to be underestimated. And in a service provider environment I think
you must be doubly cautious about them. However, in an enterprise
environment it may be appropriate to make certain allowances for certain
> In my opinion, this means that the router of the future needs
> to look a little different, and this has implications for
> other subsystems. Much of this could conceivably be hidden
> with DNS,
Since when do IP networks require DNS to function. We run a global IPv4
network with over 10,000
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
that is required is a method to distribute
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>> I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
>> harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
>> changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
>> that is required is a method to distribute the set of
>> p
Mark Andrews wrote:
I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
that is required is a method to distribute the set of
prefixes in us
> This prompted a jabber discussion extracts of which follow.
>
> note that people who operate routers are usually all about control.
> automatic renumbering is scary except maybe on the edge
> There is no loss of control. It would still require a human to add a
> prefix to the set of p
no renumbering event is "too hard" in isolation ..
BGP peers, MRTG/CRICKET monitoring, /ACL configs, syslog all come to mind
as issues/considerations for router renumbering.
and remember tht the router is the distribution engine of "the set
of prefixes in use with a set of tags
>
> I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
> harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
> changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
> that is required is a method to distribute the set of
> prefixes in use with a set of ta
I would have thought that router renumbering should be no
harder that host renumbering. Essentially all you are
changing is the higher (/48 normally) prefix bits. All
that is required is a method to distribute the set of
prefixes in use with a set of tags
12 matches
Mail list logo
