On 10/27/08 9:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote: > I agree with Bill, and it seems to me that there's a fundamental > difference between Eliot's o(10^6) big sites and the much greater > number of small sites. The big ones are very likely to have a DMZ, > run their own servers, and have multiple points of interconnection > around the world. In other words, prime candidates for PI based > addressing and maybe a map/encap style solution. > > The small ones are very likely to have a simple firewall/router > combo, outsource their publicly accessible servers, and have a single > point of attachment (or at least, several attachments in a relatively > small geographical area). They are also, I believe, much less likely > to be significantly disturbed by renumbering than the large sites. > > I think there's definitely scope for two solutions.
Agreed. Sites can look at their tradeoffs themselves and decide whether decoupling from their upstream providers is worth the effort. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
