[85767] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Jakma)
Mon Oct 17 07:39:51 2005
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:42:15 +0100 (IST)
From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <OF95EEB63B.C04D7BAB-ON8025709D.003B5081-8025709D.003D3617@btradianz.com>
Mail-Copies-To: paul@hibernia.jakma.org
Mail-Followup-To: paul@hibernia.jakma.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
> I agree that the end state is *NOT* 100% multihoming. It is too
> complex for most people and there is no business justification for
> it. But an awful lot of business customers will be able to justify
> multihoming. That is part and parcel of the "mission critical"
> Internet.
Portability is another aspect. You mightn't need multihoming for
failover (don't know about you, but my ISP is plenty reliable), but
you might want the ability to be "multihomed over time".
Course, IPv6 makes renumbering really easy, so maybe that argument is
moot.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow; there is no humor in Heaven.
-- Mark Twain
