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:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Stephane Bortzmeyer (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Simon Lyall (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Susan Harris (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)