Nor have I. IMHO ( because I am not the expert on this) renumbering is the worst because it impacts the entire internet. Also, no one has so far explained/quantified the gain nor how renumbering should be done.
And ( I have to repeat myself): It does not improve anything wrt mobility, multihoming, multipath forwarding, TE for the sake of traffic balancing or congestion handling,....
What 's research got to do with renumbering? I really don't know.
If renumbering once or renumbering repeatively is a topic, so why does no researcher question the hereby used routing paradigm itself ?!
-------- Kabel E-Mail Reply ---------------
To : firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 28.08.2008 20:16:13
I haven't voted because the question is not precise enough:
> Initiated by Tony Li.
> Assuming current renumbering technology, what amount of renumbering
> can be required in the RRG's recommended routing architecture?
"current renumbering technology" could mean a whole lot of things
including typing in new addresses. "amount" doesn't provide any value
and can't be quantified to any value. And "RRG recommend architecture"
is also vague. Does it mean a new routing architecture or the Loc/ID
split architectures we have been discussing?
If the question was:
Does a Locator/ID split solution require sites or core devices to
renumber before it actually can work?
It would be easier to answer honestly.
On Aug 28, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Tony Li wrote:
> Hi all,
> We've only gotten a handfull of responses to our consensus check.
> The poll
> can be found here:
> I'd really like to see some broader participation. We've certainly
> lots of opinions, so I know that you're out there...
> to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with the
> word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg