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]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nils Ketelsen
nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org
Wed Mar 2 14:46:09 CET 2005
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 2-mrt-05, at 11:29, Daniel Roesen wrote: > >Doing more-specific multihoming makes ONLY sense when planning to > >filter > >them at some point in time. Unfortunately at exactly this point, this > >scheme fails. This cannot be fixed in time and with education, this is > >a very fundamental problem of this approach. > No, it's not. Keeping the aggregate up isn't hard to do, and all the > other stuff is even easier. I want a second uplink to another provider for one simple reason: I do not trust one single provider to deliver the Level of service I want. Making a backup, that still relies on the first provider to work is only of limited use. I want a backup, that also works if Provider1 loses all his peers, burns down, goes bankrupt etc. Nils -- Will trade links for food. [geklaut bei www.userfriendly.org]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]