David Coulson wrote:
Deepak Jain wrote:
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.
Depends - If you're an Enterprise where 90% of the equipment is managed
by people who work in the same building, it's not horrible. I renumbered
a bunch of /20s onto a /18 where 75% of the equipment was not in my (or
the company's) control. That sucked big time.
Right, but a /20 is a /lot/ more space than a /24. I think I'd say that
shorter than a /21 is certainly a decent threshold of pain (personally).
Even if its all in-house.
There are ways to make it less painful and special painless cases (an
all NAT space), but as a shot-in-the-dark, that's a pretty good bet [you
almost certainly have a decent mix of network and server gear, different
authorities, different topologies, etc]
DJ
