Re: IPv6 Allocation Policy
Pekka Savola <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Craig A. Huegen wrote: > On Wed, 21 May 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > So, in essence it calls for separate addressing to separate sites with > > > multiple ISP's at the same site. This company uses PA space when only one > > > provider is present at a site (smaller access points). > > > > What is the percentage of the traffic in the known services, vs. the rest? > > The problem is that the WWW and FTP services are the most critical and > have a greater need to use PI space, so that they are available globally > and aren't subject to the originating host selecting the paths used. > > > such services), but the employee hosts etc. would use a company, > > globe-wide /32 address, would advertising the /32 in all the locations be > > a problem? > > Yes, it would -- if a user on the east coast of the US downloads something > from Australia, why should we bring that traffic onto our network in > Australia, then pay another (very expensive) provider to haul it over the > private WAN to the east coast of the US? Isn't that what I pay ISP's to > do locally? So, it seems to me that Cisco would be best using multiple ISP-specific PA addresses, right? That would seem to solve about all the problems related to traffic engineering? (You only configure addresses of those ISP's which are connected to your public service sites -- and each of them gets there without WAN traffic.) -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6