North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cogent move without renumbering

  • From: Paul Vixie
  • Date: Sun Oct 09 00:19:56 2005

> # IX's are not, alas, the center of the internet, no matter what anybody's
> # marketing might say.  the vast majority of traffic exchange is by private
> # interconnect, which might be an IX crossconnect, but might just as likely
> # be some kind of ISO-L1 or ISO-L2 link through a metro or telco or whatever.
> Are you agreeing with Bill Woodcock, who wrote "ISPs which matter
> are at more than one IX"?

um, no.  or maybe yes.  that's a different issue altogether than what i said.

> Perhaps you are quibbling that the "ISPs that matter" are not the
> "vast majority of traffic"?

i don't know or care what isp's matter.  i do know what i said, from personal
experience as a co-founder and later president of PAIX, is what i meant.

> Or do you have some other insight on how to do massive moves quickly,
> without renumbering and without damaging the routing tables?

the last idea i heard in that regard was IPv6's A6/DNAME dns architecture,
which i strongly supported, and which would have given IPv6 a qualitative
rather than quantitative advantage over IPv4.

other than that, tli's comments on the thread where he finally claimed that
IPv6 was "too little, too soon", whereas what we needed wasn't more bits
but smarter routing, were the last intelligent words spaketh on this topic.

i guess that means, no, i havn't got quick renumbering in my pocket.  but i
do know that the IX's don't have it either.  let's talk about this again
every ten years until one of us dies, OK?
Paul Vixie