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. >