At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
In the decentralized world of the Internet, we have a bigger problem in
that we do not have a clear entity that impose the necessary regulatory
pressures and there is no commercial pressure. All we can do is to ask
people to be good Internet citizens
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:01 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 08:14 PM 29-11-04 -0800, Tony Li wrote:
SNIP
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over management
of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one prefix per
country.
SNIP
If the customer doesn't
Please see an earlier write-up below. Will we run into IPv6 routing table
problems without more formalized aggregation guidelines?
The general guiding principal for the allocation of IPv6 address space is
as follows:
/48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers
/64
On 28-nov-04, at 5:20, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will
be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes today is similarily
unfounded as far as I'm aware. I
At 06:33 PM 11/29/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-nov-04, at 5:20, Daniel Roesen wrote:
I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
this view.
ACK. All the oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes
Daniel Senie wrote:
There are basically two issues: the forwarding table and BGP
processing. Information in the forwarding table needs to be found
*really* fast. Fortunately, it's possible to create datastructures
where this is possible, to all intends and purposes, regardless of the
size of
Snip
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one
prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for
national providers and folks that care about optimal routing, but it's
the only way
I'm sorry, North Korea is in the UN. My mistake.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Johnson
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:25 PM
To: Tony Li; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: size of the routing table is a big deal, especially in
Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of
one prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides
for national providers and folks that care about optimal
Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and
you would get to a point where people would make some more rational
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:14:27PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
My preferred solution at this point is for the UN to take over
management of the entire Internet and for them to issue a policy of one
prefix per country. This will have all sorts of nasty downsides for
national providers and folks
At 12:00 AM 11/30/2004, Jeff Kell wrote:
Tony Li wrote:
If there was a way that these costs were reallocated to the site that
decided to be multihomed, then the economics of the situation would
balance. Imagine paying US $10K/yr to advertise a single prefix and you
would get to a point where
12 matches
Mail list logo
