[97678] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Wilcox)
Fri Jun 29 10:04:32 2007
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 +0100
From: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>
To: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Cc: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>, owner-nanog@merit.edu,
Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <286347655-1183124221-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-596087835-@bxe028.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
Steve
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless.
>
> --
> Sent from my BlackBerry.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
>
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33
> To:Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
> Cc:nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
>
>
>
>
> On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer
> >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the
> >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to
> >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted
> >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both.
> > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to
> > crawl those v6 sites?
>
> I think we're debating from very similar positions...
>
> v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if
> life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question.
>
> Andy
>
