|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
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.
|