Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 08:51:58PM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Carlos Friacas wrote:
> > These two "rules" imply that Provider Independent networks
> > shall not exist ???
> > IMHO, this is a good thing!
> 
> IMHO, this is a mistake. What do large (non-ISP) companies want?
> 1. Their own address space (because they don't want to be held hostage
> by an operator).
> 2. Multihoming.

There seems to be consensus that the current BGP-based global 
infrastructure will not scale to "every big company gets an AS and
their own address space and is visible world-wide".

Also, multihoming is not "the answer" for the general issue of "I want
to increase reliability of my network infrastructure" (to the contrary,
for the usual case of "no people with BGP experience and no money for
a second BGP-capable router here").  Check the archives for lengthy 
discussions of this point.

In addition, with IPv6, people *will* *not* accept end sites' routes
in the default free zone.  Some providers that already do IPv6 have
pretty clearly stated that.

[..]
> The day you convince (my personal picks, no business relation)
> amazon.com, ebay.com, cnn.com. etrade.com and consorts to go
> singledhomed IPv6 with an address that belongs to their transit
> provider, let me know.

What's wrong about doing this?  Or getting a number of /48s from
a number of upstream providers, and multi-homing to those (IPv6 can
easily do that)?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   74810  (74196)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net