Owen DeLong wrote:
200 might be optimistic, agreed. I think 100 is pretty well assured absent something much more profligate than current policies.
Profligacy based on the assumption of exhaustion impossibility needs to be avoided. Agreed.
we've run a number conversion / renumbering once... we can do it again, better the second time, right? :) Maybe this next time we'll even plan based on lessons learned in the v4 -> v6 slog? Technically, we’ve run one, we’re running a second one now, and yeah, hopefully lessons learned can play a part.
Of course this also ignores the third transition which included a numbering transition as enterprises went from running everything else (x.25, vines, IPX, DECNET, AppleTalk, etc.) to IP.
Owen
The lesson we are still learning is that the longer entrenched and successful a numbering scheme is, the more monumental the conversion effort becomes. And that therefore we should never again do one, as we have every intention of this scheme vastly exceeding the old one. Joe