On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:58:10AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
Because you can't change your upstream and keep your net-block.
I still don't understand why this is so important, especially for networks with only a /24 or so of public visibility.
I was answering the point, that there was no particular advantage between one IP addr block and another. I was disproving that statement. Please learn to understand the difference between making a point and advocating a position.
Translation: "I don't like the current system, but I'm not going to do anything about it, short of posting flame bait to this list"
[...] This is one clue that you may be missing.
*plonk*
You might also catch the clue that, as folks migrate more to RAIC (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Computers) configurations, they will swallow more IP addrs. When I can get a 100 node Linux cluster to do the job of a Sun e6500, for one-tenth the cost, I'll be more than happy to burn the IP addrs.
Do all 100 machines need globally routable (and provider-independent, no less) IP's? That could pose a bit of a security issue, especially if these are back-end machines housing sensitive data, and aren't locked down tight enough.
Now, try and renumber/test/redeploy that mess in a day [...]
s/day/few minutes/ Easy done, using the same mechanism you're using to make sure configs, software, content, security, network settings, etc are in sync, right?
Actually, investor folk look at some of that for obvious (to everyone but you)
*plonk*
reasons. Which co-los are being used, as well as how many of them, make a big statement on robustness. However, too many locations indicate wastage of funds. It also indicates access to bandwidth and scaleability.
Yes, proper due diligence is always important, especially in light of the recent dot.bomb failures. But what I was responding to was not that, but rather, your assertion that the investment community considers certain _IP blocks_ to be more desirable than others. -adam