North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Sat Nov 20 07:26:22 2004 
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 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.



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.