Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

[Scott McGrath <mcgrath () fas harvard edu>]

On the subject of how many entities should be multihomed.   Any entitiy 
whose operations would be significantly impacted by the loss of their 
connectivity to the global internet.

A personal example with names withheld to protect the guilty

A distributor who took 85% of their orders over the internet the rest was 
phone and EDI the telcom coordinator got a 'great deal' on Internet service 
and LD from an unnamed vendor.   Well we cut over our links and within a 
week our major customers had trouble reaching us due to the SP relying only 
on the public peering points to exchange traffic with other networks.

At that point I set up BGP got an AS and reconnected our new provider and 
our old provider so that we had service from both SP's

A 30 year old company almost went out of business due to being single-homed.

Being dependent on a single SP is a "Bad Thing (tm)"

At 04:02 AM 7/8/2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:

> Moreover, if you are not multihomned, you can be aggregated. If you became
> multihome - yes, you take a slot; how many entities in the world should be
> multihomed?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz () bellsouth com>
> To: "David Conrad" <david.conrad () nominum com>; "Alexei Roudnev"
> <alex () relcom net>
> Cc: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi () niif hu>; "Daniel Golding"
> <dgolding () burtongroup com>; "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath () fas harvard edu>;
> <nanog () merit edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
>
>
>
> > Alexei,
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> > > What's the problem with independent address space for every entity
> > > (company,
> > > family, enterprise) which wants it?
> >
> > It doesn't scale.  Regardless of Moore's law, there are some
> > fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
>
> I would contend that is not true.  What says that every device inside a
> company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by
> anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session
> initiation is concerned?
>
> Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes
> down substantially.  Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Trust me, I would like to just see us get it over with as far as IPv6 is
> concerned, provided we have a working, palatable IPv6 mh solution.  But,
> man, I can't pass the red face test on a lot of these hypothesis.... :(
>
> Thanks,
> Christian
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
> of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
> computers. 163