nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Tony Li <tony.li () tony li>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:36:24 -0700
I don't want to speak for Daniel, nor other operators really, but asolution that doesn't allow an operator to traffic engineer internally or externally is just not workable. For the same reasons quoted in your othermessages to me: "Increased reliance on the Internet"
There's nothing in any multi-prefix multihoming solution that prevents an operator from internal or external traffic engineering. There just isn't a single explicit prefix to manipulate. If, within any given routing domain, you choose to carry a longer prefix and manipulate it to whatever extent your vendor's BGP permits, you and your consenting adult peers are free to do so. Do not, however, expect the rest of us to carry your traffic engineering prefixes. We are not interested.
agreed, but it doesn't seem that, until recently atleast, there was muchoperator participation. Hopefully that's changing for the better :)
Hopefully, that will reach a point where the operators show up and participate at IETF, rather than the IETF coming to NANOG.
Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Daniel Roesen (Oct 15)
- shim6 ... easy? bmanning (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Kevin Loch (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Gregory Edigarov (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Alexei Roudnev (Oct 23)
- Re: IPv6 news Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 24)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 24)