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

Thu May 22 01:17:44 UTC 2008

I worked for an ISP that was bought by another ISP and had to assign all
new IP's roughly a /16 worth.  Good times.  Only one ASN thank goodness

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak at ai.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:09 PM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: Renumbering, was: [NANOG] Multihoming for small frys?

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.

We've all been to the other, more realistic place, no?

While we all feel pain for folks who have to do renumbers, even if EVERY

single host in there is a MAJOR dns server (which is my personal worst 
case) for MAJOR sites, even *that* has become much easier to address 
than it used to be.

This is probably rhetorical, but I feel like some threshold of 
materiality should be roughly described so Operators don't get whipsawed

  over variable length renumbers longer than a certain length.

DJ