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
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
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.
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
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
prefixes in
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
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
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
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
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
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
This prompted a jabber discussion extracts of which follow.
X note that people who operate routers are usually all about control.
automatic renumbering is scary except maybe on the edge
marka There is no loss of control. It would still require a human to add a
prefix to the set
12 matches
Mail list logo
