[85793] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Mon Oct 17 13:43:37 2005
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:29:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to:
<OF95EEB63B.C04D7BAB-ON8025709D.003B5081-8025709D.003D3617@btradianz.com>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
> > I'm not sure I agree that the end state is 100% multihoming. I can
> > certainly agree that more multihoming is coming. Many more people are
> > pushing for multihoming today than in previous years, apparently telco
> > instability (financial not technical) is/has driven this :) (among other
> > things I'm sure)
>
> 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.
It'd be interesting to see how many 'providers' can't qualify for a /32
and will have multihomed in v6 and will thus have more than 1 /48 assigned
and thus more than 1 /64 per customer... Say someone like Covad or Rythyms
or perhaps even a cable-isp? In these instances each consumer will
actually be multihomed, yes? The complexity just landed on your
grandmama's doorstep.
-Chris
