Subject: Re: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:24:10 +1200

On 2008-08-14 12:06, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> One of the topics that came up in Dublin during Lixia's talk was the
>> acceptability of renumbering.  How do folks feel about an architectural
>> solution requiring renumbering to retain scalability?
> 
> It will surely make new technology easier to deploy and scale better.
> Will the bearer of the cost accept it? Well, it there is compelling
> benefit, I think so. Do I think there is compelling benefits, again, I
> think so.
> 
> And we think (the LISP crew) that single-homed sites that want to become
> multi-homed sites will be willing to renumber. Will multi-homed sites
> renumber for a loc/id split solution, I think it depends on how simple
> it is to run the solution and hence provide the benefits we have talked
> about before.
> 
> Now, the hard question is, will multi-homed sites who already have
> renumbered with PI space, will they renumber again so if a PTR solution
> is put in place, we can advertise less routes rather than more for
> interworking purposes.

Are we talking v4 or v6? For v6, we've always tried to project the
idea that renumbering, or rather adding and dropping prefixes, should
be business as usual (RFC 4192). But I'm not sure this idea has
taken among typical site IT managers. It requires rather disciplined
operational practices such as a complete and current network management
database from which configs can be generated for routers, DHCP, DNS
etc. Without such practices, I think we'll see very strong resistance
to renumbering, even for IPv6 where it should be easier.

    Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg