nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 news


From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:16 +0000 (GMT)



On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
I'm not sure I agree that the end state is 100% multihoming. I can
certainly agree that more multihoming is coming. Many more people are
pushing for multihoming today than in previous years, apparently telco
instability (financial not technical) is/has driven this :) (among other
things I'm sure)

I agree that the end state is *NOT* 100% multihoming. It is
too complex for most people and there is no business
justification for it. But an awful lot of business customers
will be able to justify multihoming. That is part and parcel
of the "mission critical" Internet.

It'd be interesting to see how many 'providers' can't qualify for a /32
and will have multihomed in v6 and will thus have more than 1 /48 assigned
and thus more than 1 /64 per customer... Say someone like Covad or Rythyms
or perhaps even a cable-isp? In these instances each consumer will
actually be multihomed, yes? The complexity just landed on your
grandmama's doorstep.

-Chris


Current thread: