nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:25:17 +0100
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 norouting tricks that can make it scale, whatever you put in the IP versionbits, so learn to love renumbering.
This is patently false. If it were true, then I would have to renumberevery time I changed telephone companies. I don't, so, obviously, thereis 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.
Current thread:
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6, (continued)
- Re: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in IPv6 Jeroen Massar (Nov 30)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Daniel Senie (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI John Kristoff (Nov 28)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI Nils Ketelsen (Nov 29)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Fred Baker (Nov 27)
- Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32) Owen DeLong (Nov 25)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Chris Kuethe (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Michael . Dillon (Nov 22)
- Message not available
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Elmar K. Bins (Nov 23)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 30)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Alex Bligh (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Eric A. Hall (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 20)