> On Mar 27, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Masataka Ohta <[email protected]> > wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger > > involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is > > required and which partially or fully overlap. > > As you mention "overlap", you should mean business merger implies > network and office merger, which causes relocation of a office,
Overlap here refers to network address space address space, a fundamental part of this discussion. Formerly separate networks containing separately managed rfc1918 spaces are prone to overlap require ingenious solutions for end-to-end traffic without renumbering. Mergers do not cause relocation of an office, which is not germane to this discussion. > which, in general, requires provider change and renumbering > of globally unique addresses, unless you own /24. Moot since we are not discussing office moves. However, renumbering to global IPv6 addressing allows easy coexistence with the global Internet > > > Ignoring short-sighted > > financial management views, the best long term solution is globally > > unique IPv6 addressing wherever possible. > > See above. See previous. > > Or, if you mean network merger remotely with VPN, small > number of hosts requiring E2E transparency may be renumbered, > but it is not so painful. Nobody mentioned VPN or limiting the number of hosts requiring E2E. “not so painful” is not meaningful metric in this discussion. > > Masataka Ohta
