[97684] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Antoniell)
Fri Jun 29 10:39:16 2007
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:28:43 -0300 (UYT)
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Antoniello?= <nicolas@antel.net.uy>
Reply-To: nantoniello@antel.net.uy
To: Stephen Wilcox <steve.wilcox@packetrade.com>
Cc: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>,
Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>, owner-nanog@merit.edu,
Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20070629135506.GW18222@MrServer.telecomplete.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
steve. >multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams
Hey, that's a very "simplistic" IGP point of view !!
I'm afraid I disagree :)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
steve. >
steve. >multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams.
steve. >
steve. >the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group
steve. >
steve. >this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level
steve. >
steve. >Steve
steve. >
steve. >On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +0000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
steve. >> Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless.
steve. >>
steve. >> --
steve. >> Sent from my BlackBerry.
steve. >>
steve. >> -----Original Message-----
steve. >> From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
steve. >>
steve. >> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33
steve. >> To:Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
steve. >> Cc:nanog@nanog.org
steve. >> Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
steve. >>
steve. >>
steve. >>
steve. >>
steve. >> On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote:
steve. >>
steve. >> >> That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer
steve. >> >> 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the
steve. >> >> community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to
steve. >> >> Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted
steve. >> >> on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both.
steve. >> > If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to
steve. >> > crawl those v6 sites?
steve. >>
steve. >> I think we're debating from very similar positions...
steve. >>
steve. >> v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if
steve. >> life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question.
steve. >>
steve. >> Andy
steve. >>
steve. >
