[75710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sun Nov 21 13:41:21 2004
In-Reply-To: <00a201c4cf2b$ab896c70$6801a8c0@stephen>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:40:52 +0100
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 20-nov-04, at 18:34, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Don't have "real connectivity"?
>> That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster
>> than 16 kbps.
> Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet?
Not me. But if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute
to the global routing table so there is no issue. :-)
The point is, that these days applications such as mail and web are
sufficiently heavy that you can't even run them cost effectively over
dial up (wasting your employee's time costs more than the fatter line)
let alone less.
>> So a single large address block is of little use to such an
>> organization, unless they get to announce more specifics all over the
>> place.
> In my experience, they will announce the aggregate from all hub sites
> plus more-specifics for that hub and the sites directly connected to
> it. Traffic that comes into the wrong hub due to prefix length
> filters (or Internet outages) is back-hauled inside the corporate
> backbone.
It would be interested to see some good statistics on this stuff.
However many enterprises any of us has seen from the inside, it's still
unlikly to be a statistically relevant sample.
