North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

  • From: Deepak Jain
  • Date: Wed May 21 16:38:31 2008



David Coulson wrote:
Deepak Jain wrote:
Can we all agree that while renumbering sucks, a /24 (or less) is a pretty low-pain thing to renumber (vs. say, renumbering a /20 or shorter prefix?) In an ideal world, you never have to renumber because your allocations were perfect from the get-go.
Depends - If you're an Enterprise where 90% of the equipment is managed by people who work in the same building, it's not horrible. I renumbered a bunch of /20s onto a /18 where 75% of the equipment was not in my (or the company's) control. That sucked big time.


Right, but a /20 is a /lot/ more space than a /24. I think I'd say that shorter than a /21 is certainly a decent threshold of pain (personally). Even if its all in-house.


There are ways to make it less painful and special painless cases (an all NAT space), but as a shot-in-the-dark, that's a pretty good bet [you almost certainly have a decent mix of network and server gear, different authorities, different topologies, etc]

DJ