IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6, interNAT, Wi-Fi (not mobile)

John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com> Thu, 27 March 2003 15:03 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00571; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:03:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yYye-0007hZ-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:07:36 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yHyZ-0001tR-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:58:23 -0500
Received: from carwash.centive.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id PAA13570 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from minglewood.incentivesystems.com ([172.16.0.25]) by carwash.centive.com (NAVGW 2.5.2.11) with SMTP id M2003032615500513246 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:50:05 -0500
Received: from centive.com ([10.10.48.156]) by minglewood.incentivesystems.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3E8210E9.4060703@centive.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:43:21 -0500
From: John Stracke <jstracke@centive.com>
Organization: Centive
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6, interNAT, Wi-Fi (not mobile)
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030326121350.020e1a18@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030326121350.020e1a18@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2003 20:43:21.0180 (UTC) FILETIME=[56A2F1C0:01C2F3D8]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Fred Baker wrote:

> Using it as ad hoc, I think you want to not relay route flaps to your 
> providers. Rather, you want to advertise your prefix (however 
> obtained) to them en mass, and handle the routing issues internally. 
> This may mean providing wired connectivity between your various points 
> of attachment to your providers, to mask the internal motion.

Or, failing that, some more firmly nailed-up wireless connectivity.  If 
you can get line-of-sight between your attachment points, then two 
high-gain antennas and two UPSes would be cheaper than most wired 
connections, and probably almost as reliable.

-- 
/============================================================\
|John Stracke      |jstracke@centive.com                     |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com                   |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.                  |
|============================================================|
|"God does not play games with His loyal servants." "Whoo-ee,|
|where have you *been*?" --_Good Omens_                      |
\============================================================/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email