North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Google wants to be your Internet

  • From: Roland Dobbins
  • Date: Wed Jan 24 09:42:15 2007
  • Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-1; [email protected]; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
  • Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=899; t=1169649053; x=1170513053; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; [email protected]; z=From:=20Roland=20Dobbins=20<[email protected]> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Google=20wants=20to=20be=20your=20Internet |Sender:=20 |To:=20NANOG=20<[email protected]>; bh=t16hOiVozmLbW5RpxYbJ2eWFgt0EIHYkjS9D41lblNs=; b=JfAxDjGloXZaXIrpg1+v5uqmXlOMfkmWFm4tiPHnFNv8uTKIiYTsA6S1KE2lYL+K6HNNHkDJ dZ8dugi+3XNcq+L13KxjEeoUywKgR3KM24YxvIyoHg9lqVon1qE8w/y3;


On Jan 24, 2007, at 5:48 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

The whole address conservation mantra has turned out to be a lot
of smoke and mirrors anyway.

At the time, yes, this particular issue was overhyped, just as the routing-table-expansion issue was underhyped. As we move to an 'Internet of Things', however, it will become manifestl

With regards to the perceived advantages and disadvantages of IPv6 as it is currently defined, there is wide range of opinion on the subject. For many, the 'still-need-NAT-under-IPv6 vs. IPv6- eliminates-the-need-for-NAT' debate is of minor importance compared to more fundamental questions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email protected]> // 408.527.6376 voice

Technology is legislation.

-- Karl Schroeder