> On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 12:58:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On 19-nov-04, at 17:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >Don't have "real connectivity"? I've personally worked with dozens of
> >Fortune 500 companies that have internal FR/ATM networks that dwarf
> >AT&T, UUnet, etc. in the number of sites connected. Thousands of
> >sites is common, and tens of thousands of sites in some cases. Do you
> >not consider these networks "real" because each site may only have a
> >16k PVC to talk to corporate?
>
> As far as I can tell, it's pretty rare for an
> organization of this size to have their own IP network that they use to
> connect all their sites to the global internet, for the simple reason
> that leased lines, framerelay or ATM capacity is generally more
> expensive than IP connectivity.
it is not rare at all, in my experience. my personal
dealings with 50+ multinational corporations show that
they -ALL- have their own corporate networks that are
isolated from the Internet and nearly all run IP over these
internal corporate networks. the trival cost of dedicated
lines, or FR/ATM cloud, or VPN overlay is much cheaper
than a dependance on upstream providers (since no single provider
can support their needs) or exposing corporate/trade secrets
to the broader internet.
> So a single large address block is of little use to such an
> organization, unless they get to announce more specifics all over the
> place.
that does not follow, except from your faulty presumption
above.
-- bill
