Biggest mistake for IPv6: It's not backwards compatible, developers admit

[Pierfrancesco Caci]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 16:14, Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi at niif.hu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:

>
>> - allow multihoming the way v4 PI does for small players
>
> What do you mean by this? Have more than one upstream provider for
> resiliency?


think about the small-ish operator that has a couple of transits (for
costs and resiliency reasons) and peers at the local exchange with
other networks. This is a quite common scenario, and they won't give
away the ability to do that quite easily, unless the market changes in
a way that I honestly can't imagine.


>
>> - allow 'political' traffic engineering, in addition to whatever
>> technical reason you may have already
>
>
> Are you willing to pay for poluting DFZ routing table?
>

Are you willing to explain to your colleague in finances why you let
your traffic with $big_provider_A go over commit at premium price,
while traffic with $big_provider_B was under commit? Please note that
the colleague in finances is the same that will deny you the upgrades
of your router memories at budget time.


-- 
 Pierfrancesco Caci, ik5pvx