nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: Nils Ketelsen <nils.ketelsen () kuehne-nagel com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:38:14 -0500
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster than 16 kbps.Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet? 16kbps is the lowest I've seen only because that's the smallest you can buy in the FR world (Sprint's 0kbps PVCs aside). Many businesses were fine (and still
4k and 8k PVCs are available (and in use) in some regions. I have seen them in Africa and southern Asia mainly.
As far as I can tell, it's pretty rare for an organization of this size to have their own IP network that they use to connect all their sites to the global internet, for the simple reason that leased lines, framerelay or ATM
It is quite possible to use these links to connect sites to the internet. Not for surfing mp3-sites maybe, but having a terminal session to some other business partners machine. The corporate mainframe world allows for many things on small bandwidth, even if some providers don't like it. ;-)
capacity is generally more expensive than IP connectivity.At higher bw levels, that might be true, but at sub-T1 rates FR/ATM are often cheaper to build your own network and certainly offer lower latency and higher reliability; ditto for outside major cities, where FR/ATM typically offers a zero-mile loop whereas IP connections may need to be backhauled a hundred miles or more. If T1 Internet pipes are cheaper at a
Servicelevels on the Internet suck. Thats the main reason not to use it for anything important. If my frame-connection fails I open my hand and my provider pays a lot until it works again. If "the Internet fails", I have no one I can squeeze the money out of. That massively increases a FR-Providers motivation to have their network running. Penalties can never make up for a lost connection (no provider has enough cash at hand) but it is a nice PART (P=Provider).
particular location, some people may choose to tunnel their corporate network over it, but that is typically _all_ traffic, not just internal traffic.
Centralized Internetgateways are common practice. Everything has to go through these (and their filters, Virus Scanners, whatnot).
There's also a security motivation as well: it's much simpler to maintain a couple firewalls at central sites (with technical staff present) than to manage thousands out at every site with a handful or even zero human users which may not even be allowed Internet access in the first place.
Especially with users having physical access to the firewalls. Securitywise you do not want that, but if you have internetaccess in each location users can just bypass the firewall too easily. With a framerelay network they can plug in something else to the wall but won't get anywhere else then with their normal equipment, so they do not do it due to the lack of advantage. Nils
Current thread:
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?], (continued)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 25)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 26)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 27)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Nils Ketelsen (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Nils Ketelsen (Nov 22)
- Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Sean Donelan (Nov 22)
- Re: Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 23)
- large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Pekka Savola (Nov 21)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] bmanning (Nov 21)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Pekka Savola (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] bmanning (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Patrick W Gilmore (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] bmanning (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Patrick W Gilmore (Nov 22)