[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NAT444 or ?
On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
> I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not distributed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points) of contact.
The point is that these aggregations of state are quite vulnerable, and therefore they should be as distributed as is practicable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
-- Oscar Wilde
- Follow-Ups:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne)
- References:
- NAT444 or ?
- From: sergevautour at yahoo.ca (Serge Vautour)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: seth.mos at dds.nl (Seth Mos)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: rdobbins at arbor.net (Dobbins, Roland)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne)
- NAT444 or ?
- From: leigh.porter at ukbroadband.com (Leigh Porter)