This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Dec 7 15:58:22 CET 2005
> To a first approximation, there is *no* level of aggregation in the UK that > works below UK-wide. If that were really true, and I suspect that it is only true for the very largest providers, then there is an easy solution. Providers who see no benefit in using geotop addressing should continue to use classical IPv6 addressing. Geotop addressing is not a prescription for rearchitecting the Internet, just an enabler for ISPs who want to give small and medium size organizations real multihomed diverse connectivity to the Internet. These organizations will consume hundreds of thousands of AS numbers and global routing slots unless their routes can be collapsed into city aggregates. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]