[rrg] Small v Large networks [Re: Renumbering can never be secure, testable, reliable or routine - draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work]

[Scott Brim]

On 10/27/08 9:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> I agree with Bill, and it seems to me that there's a fundamental
> difference between Eliot's o(10^6) big sites and the much greater
> number of small sites. The big ones are very likely to have a DMZ,
> run their own servers, and have multiple points of interconnection
> around the world. In other words, prime candidates for PI based
> addressing and maybe a map/encap style solution.
> 
> The small ones are very likely to have a simple firewall/router
> combo, outsource their publicly accessible servers, and have a single
> point of attachment (or at least, several attachments in a relatively
> small geographical area). They are also, I believe, much less likely
> to be significantly disturbed by renumbering than the large sites.
> 
> I think there's definitely scope for two solutions.

Agreed.  Sites can look at their tradeoffs themselves and decide whether
decoupling from their upstream providers is worth the effort.