I agree completely. Anything that makes it easy to renumber all the hosts in a given small-i internet into a new prefix, or better still, a different-size block, solves almost all of the problems that people talk about on CIDRD.

I am therefore always at a loss to explain why a couple of fairly vocal IAB members are so stringently opposed to developing such technology, and moreover actively curse a technology that can solve 90% of the cases where renumbering is a problem (small small-i internets moving to new providers or *** connecting for the first time ***).

Its obviously not a technical, but an attitude problem. People have the mindset that they "fought" for getting a net number, and they take pride in ownership. A good part of the problem is that those people got the address in the mindset of "my address lasts forever," rather than being a convenience measure. There is no guarantee you keep your phone number either, if the phone company beliieves they have a good reason to change it. Look at the area code splits in, e.g., CA. Or is you move to "another area." Postal address the same. If you move to another location, you mail your business partners and customers a new name-to-address mapping. The other issue is an overblown horror about renumbering (even if the same names are kept). In reality it is really not THAT much of a big deal (yes, I have done it several times before), if planned for right, and if at most one has to do it only every few years. Sure it can be quite a bit of work, BUT SO WHAT? Networking does not come for free, it is a high maintenance item, just like trees in the back yard. There sure is a solution to not having to worry about the work with the trees any more. People just have to learn that in an environment as fastly moving as The Network, things cannot be static, and they have to expect some maintenance work, and some of it may be a pain in the butt. Cost of doing business. Just include the budget for "1 renumbering every 3 years" as a line item. I cannot understand the pride people take in exponential grows, and a belief in things being static and maintenance free at the same time. Guess the *real* problem is that nobody has the guts in this anarchic Internet environment to put his butt on the line and force the issue.

Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:21:02 -0700 From: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org> Message-ID: <95May18.092114pdt.5954@cesium.clock.org> I am therefore always at a loss to explain why a couple of fairly vocal IAB members are so stringently opposed to developing such technology, [ for renumbering ] This is unadulterated crap. No-one on the IAB I'm aware of (which I think would include the vocal members) has ever expressed such an opinion. I half suspect that I am supposed to be one of those "fairly vocal IAB members", and I know that is certainly not my view. By all means develop renumbering technology, it would be a very useful thing to have available, even if it wasn't required to support PA addreses, and the issues they imply. However, please be aware that there is a HUGE difference between There should not be renumbering technology and There is no current renumbering technology The first is an opinion, and is what you are attributing to some (unnamed, which makes it hard to comment) IAB members. The second is a simple fact. At this point we have a difference of opinion - there are some people who believe that even if renumbering technology can be developed for IPv4, it will never be deployed in enough places and soon enough to make any real difference to anything, and that its very unwise to make policy now which presumes that this renumbering technology will somehow come into existance and be useful. There are others who believe that it is simply essential for this renumbering technology to exist, or the net will cease to exist because of the routing table size problems. Me? I'm in both camps, I believe both of the above. That is, I believe that renumbering is essential, and must come, or we won't survive. I also believe that its very unlikely that renumbering for IPv4 will ever be deployed widely enough that we can really count on using it, or expect people to be able to use it. The solution - simple - renumbering is to be, and must be, an integral part of IPv6, using IPv6 we can assume that everyone has access to automatic renumbering, and we can realistically require that they make use of it when required. If you look at my comments on the (various) IPng lists, you'll find that I am a truly radical proponent of renumbering, anticipating, and demanding, automatic renumbering that goes far beyond what most people believe possible - but even if we don't get that far, IPv6 will certainly have renumbering that IPv4 can only dream about. Even if we don't need IPv6 in a big hurry to solve the address space problems, I believe we need it in a big hurry to aleviate the routing table growth problems. Recall that IPv6 was designed (or "chartered" may be a better word) to solve both those problems, not just the address space problem. kre