On 19-Sep-12 03:46, Alex Harrowell wrote: > On the other hand, the scarcity is of *globally unique routable* > addresses. You can make a case that private use of (non-RFC1918) IPv4 > resources is wasteful in itself at the moment. To be provocative, what > on earth is their excuse for not using IPv6 internally? By definition, > an internal network that isn't announced to the public Internet > doesn't have to worry about happy eyeballs, broken carrier NAT, and > the like because it doesn't have to be connected to them if it doesn't > want to be. A lot of the transition issues are much less problematic > if you're not on the public Internet.
Actually, they're not any different, aside from scale. Some private internets have hundreds to thousands of participants, and they often use obscure protocols on obscure systems that were killed off by their vendors (if the vendors even exist anymore) a decade or more ago, and no source code or upgrade path is available. The "enterprise" networking world is just as ugly as, if not uglier than, the consumer one. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
