OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Fri Jul 8 15:09:26 UTC 2005

On the subject of how many entities should be multihomed.   Any entitiy 
whose operations would be significantly impacted by the loss of their 
connectivity to the global internet.

A personal example with names withheld to protect the guilty

A distributor who took 85% of their orders over the internet the rest was 
phone and EDI the telcom coordinator got a 'great deal' on Internet service 
and LD from an unnamed vendor.   Well we cut over our links and within a 
week our major customers had trouble reaching us due to the SP relying only 
on the public peering points to exchange traffic with other networks.

At that point I set up BGP got an AS and reconnected our new provider and 
our old provider so that we had service from both SP's

A 30 year old company almost went out of business due to being single-homed.

Being dependent on a single SP is a "Bad Thing (tm)"

At 04:02 AM 7/8/2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:

>Moreover, if you are not multihomned, you can be aggregated. If you became
>multihome - yes, you take a slot; how many entities in the world should be
>multihomed?
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz at bellsouth.com>
>To: "David Conrad" <david.conrad at nominum.com>; "Alexei Roudnev"
><alex at relcom.net>
>Cc: "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi at niif.hu>; "Daniel Golding"
><dgolding at burtongroup.com>; "Scott McGrath" <mcgrath at fas.harvard.edu>;
><nanog at merit.edu>
>Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 11:02 AM
>Subject: RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
>
>
>
> > Alexei,
> >
> > On Jul 7, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> > > What's the problem with independent address space for every entity
> > > (company,
> > > family, enterprise) which wants it?
> >
> > It doesn't scale.  Regardless of Moore's law, there are some
> > fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
>
>I would contend that is not true.  What says that every device inside a
>company, family, enterprise etc has to be available and reachable by
>anyone on the planet in a bidirectional fashion as far as session
>initiation is concerned?
>
>Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes
>down substantially.  Wouldn't you agree?
>
>Trust me, I would like to just see us get it over with as far as IPv6 is
>concerned, provided we have a working, palatable IPv6 mh solution.  But,
>man, I can't pass the red face test on a lot of these hypothesis.... :(
>
>Thanks,
>Christian
>
>
>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
>which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
>privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
>of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
>entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
>this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
>computers. 163