nanog mailing list archives
Re: moving to IPv6
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson () cisco com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 18:18:54 -0500
This illustrates my earlier comments about why geographically-based allocation schemes are not ideal. - paul At 02:46 PM 11/7/97 -0800, Vadim Antonov wrote:
Take Russian Internet for example: five largest ISPs all have separate dedicated links to _different_ European and North American backbones. This seems to be a typical picture all around the world. European connectivity is particularly convoluted.
Current thread:
- Re: moving to IPv6, (continued)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Pedro Marques (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 03)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Phillip Vandry (Nov 05)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 John A. Tamplin (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Karl Denninger (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Gary E. Miller (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Vadim Antonov (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Randy Bush (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Paul Ferguson (Nov 07)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Winfried Haug (Nov 09)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: moving to IPv6 Sean M. Doran (Nov 11)
- Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful Greg A. Woods (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Havard . Eidnes (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Paul A Vixie (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) bmanning (Nov 01)
- Re: NAT etc. (was: Spam Control Considered Harmful) Greg A. Woods (Nov 01)