nanog mailing list archives
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:41:01 -0500
It doesn't solve the problem of an enterprise with more than one location/network-interconnect... we can go around this rose bush again and again and again, but honestly, deployment of v6 happens for real when there is a significant business reason to deploy it, and when the real concerns
of
enterprises today are actually addressed.
Indeed, and the IETF's answer for multi-homing (SHIM6) is a non-starter for the majority of those interested in doing so. Enter PI space, now available from (most of) your local RIR(s). Yes, also enter DFZ growth ...
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Martin Hannigan (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Christopher Morrow (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Marshall Eubanks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Christopher Morrow (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Abley (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 05)