-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:34 PM To: NANOG list Subject: RE: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 12:41 PM To: Iljitsch van Beijnum; Jeroen Massar Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

...

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. Now I'm not saying that I necessarily want to accept the overhead and risks of SS7 to solve this, but, there are, obviously, routing tricks that can be used.

Tricks reduce reliability and create unecessary dependancies.

LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of V4 so a trick was required.

Correction: LNP was a regulatory issue post implementation of the Numbering Plan and was required. [ Sorry for the typo, second in as many days. Doh! ]