james.cutler@consultant.com wrote:
Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a fundamental part of this discussion. Formerly separate networks containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without renumbering.
If you are not satisfied with static punch holing and require to use many connections with fully dynamically generated port numbers by end systems, then, as I wrote: : The basic idea is to let NAT boxes perform address translations : only without adjusting check sums or translating ports and : to let end systems perform reverse address translations, : which restores correct check sums, and port number ^^^^^^^^^^^ : restrictions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ end to end NAT is your solution, because a locally provided port number combined with a globally unique address is a globally unique identifier at the transport layer.
Mergers do not cause relocation of an office, which is not germane to this discussion.
As mergers often cause office mergers, which imply relocations, it is your fault to have failed to clarity details.
Or, if you mean network merger remotely with VPN, small number of hosts requiring E2E transparency may be renumbered, but it is not so painful.
Nobody mentioned VPN or limiting the number of hosts requiring E2E.
It is also your fault not to have considered VPN at all, even though VPN could reduce renumbering efforts a lot.
"not so painful" is not meaningful metric in this discussion.
Then, IPv6 is just painful. PERIOD. Masataka Ohta