Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <]

On 13 nov 2005, at 16.47, Jørgen Hovland wrote:

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [
	    
	    
]
Sent: 13. november 2005 15:32

In the first scenario you are forced to the routing policies of ISP x
and only to the locations of ISP x. In the second example you can co-
locate, connect to and IXP and do your own routing decisions as well
as be present at locations you choose (without "vasting" or even
having to go to 11 servers).

You will always be forced to obey the rules of whatever provider you are
using, ISP or IXP. I get the impression that you believe ISP x's routing
policies will always be insufficient for you. Nameservers are not the only
anycast service so it would be tricky to discuss this in general.
But you want your nameserver to be reachable, that I know. Both scenarios
will accomplish that with the same amount of redundancy. What kind of
routing policies do you mean? Do you want to restrict your reachability?

If you are connected to the IXP with your own peerings, you will have  
control of the routing policies. If you host with ISP x, you will  
have to follow ISP x peerings and depeerings.

You claimed the two cases to be equal. I just pointed out that they  
are not.

- kurtis -