[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
stla registry db issue
- Subject: stla registry db issue
- From: [email protected] (Bill Manning)
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 07:54:03 -0800 (PST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> from "Michael H. Lambert" at Dec 24, 99 09:31:17 am
%
% On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, Bill Manning wrote:
% >
% > Er, that is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make.
% > If Brian is right and that group is successful in restricting
% > announcements to /29's, how much space is wasted for the sixty
% > nodes that form the cluster "www.bigco.com" that has connections
% > to 20 major ISPs?
%
% But is "bigco.com" a transit IPv6 provider? My understanding is that if
% it isn't, it should never be allocated its own TLA. It should receive a
% small block from each of its ISPs. Or am I missing something?
%
% Michael
Nope, its not. But it has -lots- of cash and is willing to
do whatever it takes. Same as today for folks dealing w/ the
micro-allocation issue. They don't want to get a small block
from each of their providers and run virtual interfaces, they
want a canonical name/number mapping. e.g. www.bigco.com
is always reachable at 127.127.0.127.
--
--bill