[35848] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Fri Mar 16 14:20:35 2001
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:37:18 -0500
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010316133718.B34508@og.latency.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CDE@condor.mhsc.com>; from rmeyer@mhsc.com on Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:58:10AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:58:10AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> Because you can't change your upstream and keep your net-block.
I still don't understand why this is so important, especially for
networks with only a /24 or so of public visibility.
> I was answering the point, that there was no particular advantage
> between one IP addr block and another. I was disproving that
> statement. Please learn to understand the difference between making
> a point and advocating a position.
Translation: "I don't like the current system, but I'm not going to do
anything about it, short of posting flame bait to this list"
> [...] This is one clue that you may be missing.
*plonk*
> You might also catch the clue that, as folks migrate more to RAIC
> (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers) configurations, they will
> swallow more IP addrs. When I can get a 100 node Linux cluster to do
> the job of a Sun e6500, for one-tenth the cost, I'll be more than
> happy to burn the IP addrs.
Do all 100 machines need globally routable (and provider-independent,
no less) IP's? That could pose a bit of a security issue, especially
if these are back-end machines housing sensitive data, and aren't
locked down tight enough.
> Now, try and renumber/test/redeploy that mess in a day [...]
s/day/few minutes/
Easy done, using the same mechanism you're using to make sure configs,
software, content, security, network settings, etc are in sync, right?
> Actually, investor folk look at some of that for obvious (to
> everyone but you)
*plonk*
> reasons. Which co-los are being used, as well as how many of them,
> make a big statement on robustness. However, too many locations
> indicate wastage of funds. It also indicates access to bandwidth and
> scaleability.
Yes, proper due diligence is always important, especially in light of
the recent dot.bomb failures. But what I was responding to was not
that, but rather, your assertion that the investment community
considers certain _IP blocks_ to be more desirable than others.
-adam
