On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 10, 2005, at 10:17 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?
Yes, according to the current RIR policies. [So the determination of "unworthy" above has been made, in effect, by RIR members.]
And this is why v6 has failed and will continue to fail.
see my comments about: "Get involved!"
The Internet is no longer an academic experiment. It is not run by the 'best technology'. It is run by the best business results.
Content providers and other large business, without who's funds the Internet would fail, have a right not to be tied to a single provider. And while I admit I am not up-to-date on v6 multi-homing strategies, the ones I have seen are either evil, unworkable or ridiculous, and simply will not fly.
See above.
There seems to be some ongoing perception that various protocol/ research organisations have no idea about the value of multi-homing for enterprises in the real network, and hence ignore it. While that might have once been the case (I certainly remember thinking so around 1997 whilst shouting on the ipng list), I don't believe it's the case today.
That is _absolutely_ the impression I get from speaking to v6 supporters today. The profess otherwise, but the solutions and technologies they suggest disprove their protestations.
Guess I better get over to shim6 and see what I'm missing out on.
excellent! one more provider/operator watching to be sure 'the right thing' happens.