nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry () TZoNE ORG>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:18:19 -0400
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:39:37AM +0100, Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:
Here, the suggestion is that netblocks should be allocated to cities, not to providers. Within
I am a multihomed customer and my ISPs are in two different cities. What are my IP addresses going to be? This situation happens all the time, by the way. In fact, the closer you get to smaller, consumer grade connectivity, the more you will see backhauling below the network layer in providers' networks that will make this happen. -Phil
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Tom Vest (Oct 19)
- Re: IPv6 news John Dupuy (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- geo-based routing [Re: IPv6 news] Pekka Savola (Oct 17)
- Re: non-provider aggregation, was: IPv6 news Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 19)
- Re: non-provider aggregation, was: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 19)
- Re: IPv6 news Gary E. Miller (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Phillip Vandry (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news william(at)elan.net (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Stephane Bortzmeyer (Oct 17)