Re: [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?

[Andre Oppermann <]

Michael.Dillon@localhost wrote:
> 
> > > Why not learn from the lessons of radio spectrum? A fixed number of
> > > 3G frequency allocations were put up for auction (or beauty contest).
> > >
> > > Why should RIPE not offer a limited number of /32 allocations for
> > > operators of anycast fabrics? I suggest that RIPE offer 16 allocations
> > > of /32 to organizations who intend to operate diverse anycast fabrics
> > > globally to serve TLD operators and others who can benefit from
> > > an anycast fabric. Select the winners by beauty contest based on
> > > technical and commercial fitness.
> >
> > Very simple answer for what is possible with _CURRENT_ policy:
> > $ whois -h whois.arin.net GOOGLE-IPV6
> 
> As far as I know, Google is not a service provider. They
> operate their own network for their own business. I am
> suggesting that a certain number of /32's should be given
> to companies which will provide global anycast meshes
> as a service to 3rd party customers. That way, TLD operators
> can choose one or more anycast hosting services to host
> their "critical" service.
> 
> This makes more sense than giving a /32 to everyone who
> feels that their service is "critical". If you analyse the
> situation by the 80/20 rule, then Google represents the
> 20% of "critical" services that are big enough to be their
> own ISP. My suggestion is meant to support the 80% of
> "critical" services that could benefit from the same
> technology as Google, but which are not large enough to
> go it alone.

Sounds great!  Do you work for ITU perhaps?

Any such criteria as you propose are broken by design.  Even more
so than many of the other IPv6 thingies.  This is not the way to
go.

-- 
Andre