nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 16:48:31 -0500
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
If this is done right, direct assignment holders and ISPs are issued sufficiently large prefixes such that the prefix count per entity remains small.
This sort of assumes Internet connectivity models of today, specifically that most address assignments are singly-homed and thus can be aggregatedd within a larger provider independent block, will remain the model of tomorrow. I have some skepticism this will be true. When entertainment, communications, monitoring, etc. are all provided via always-on IP connectivity, I suspect you'll see folks have less tolerance for even momentary outages. And that's not even considering mobility solutions that rely on the routing system (e.g., stuff like Boeing's Connexion (RIP)). We'll see I suppose. Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space David Conrad (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 05)
- NANOG job board James Jones (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space David Conrad (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 18)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 18)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 18)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 18)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 22)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 22)
- Re: IP4 Space Simon Perreault (Mar 22)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 22)
- Re: IP4 Space Owen DeLong (Mar 22)