Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 13-aug-04, at 18:23, Fleischman, Eric wrote:

> very large corporate networks (i.e., Fortune 100, governments) are 
> likely to refuse to renumber or support multiple internal addresses 
> due to cost reasons

So basically what you're saying is that using ISP-derived addresses is 
unacceptable for the largest organizations regardless of multihoming?

Are the costs of renumbering an inherent property or are there things 
we can do to make this easier and cheaper?

(I've done some experimenting with stateless address configuration 
renumbering, and this works extremely well. However, the routers and 
the DNS are more difficult. But the real problem are IP address based 
access restrictions. These are evil.)

Also, a very important issue is whether such a large organization would 
use a single address block, or a number of address blocks. In the 
former case the organization will receive packets for location A in 
location B, and thus have to arrange transportation of these packets 
themselves, which is more expensive than having ISPs deliver it to the 
right location immediately.

I think we can consider giving the n largest organizations in the world 
their own block (for reasonable values of n), but having n 
organizations introduce m entries in the routing system would be adding 
insult to injury and isn't going to fly.