[47910] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Interconnects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@karoshi.com)
Fri May 17 20:36:20 2002
From: bmanning@karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200205180033.AAA03992@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: mark@noc.mainstreet.net (Mark Kent)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:33:37 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <200205172301.g4HN1q1T043254@noc.mainstreet.net> from "Mark Kent" at May 17, 2002 04:01:52 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
>
> bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
> >> I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6
> >> hungry ...
>
> Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those
> that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it?
Id guess meeting customer demand?
> I figure that organizations that run IPV6 now think they are
> ahead of the game. Are they? Is this something that responsible
> ISPs should be doing?
Depends on what you think the game is. Being able to
get more address space than you can conceivably need
can be a powerful motivator.
> Would this turn our network into one big NAT area when we have to
> translate into IPV4 addresses at the edge to get to the real Internet?
Perhaps. The migration issues are not all that well thought
out and there are some real pitfalls in the details. Call it
early adopter syndrome.
>
> -mark
> !bankrupt, hence !Tier1
>
