Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > > [Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
>
> > > Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put
> > > together a plan to support 200 customers?  Does this mean Google,
> > > or any other content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable
> > > space?
> >
> > Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination
> > of "unworthy" above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
>
> And this is why v6 has failed and will continue to fail.

see my comments about: "Get involved!"

> The Internet is no longer an academic experiment.  It is not run by
> the 'best technology'.  It is run by the best business results.
>
> Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the
> Internet would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single
> provider.  And while I admit I am not up-to-date on v6 multi-homing
> strategies, the ones I have seen are either evil, unworkable or
> ridiculous, and simply will not fly.

See above.

> > There seems to be some ongoing perception that various protocol/
> > research organisations have no idea about the value of multi-homing
> > for enterprises in the real network, and hence ignore it. While
> > that might have once been the case (I certainly remember thinking
> > so around 1997 whilst shouting on the ipng list), I don't believe
> > it's the case today.
>
> That is _absolutely_ the impression I get from speaking to v6
> supporters today.  The profess otherwise, but the solutions and
> technologies they suggest disprove their protestations.
>
> Guess I better get over to shim6 and see what I'm missing out on.

excellent! one more provider/operator watching to be sure 'the right
thing' happens.