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

["Elmar K. Bins" <]

Hello Jørgen,

my responses to three emails from you to the lists,

jorgen@localhost (Jørgen Hovland) wrote:

> Will it not satisfy your needs placing 200 servers at 100 (numbers randomly
> selected) MCI locations world wide using IP space assigned by MCIs /32?

Certainly not - why should one be satisfied with such a pseudo-solution?
A service provider (we _are_ talking about Internet infrastructure service
providers currently, keep that in mind) that has come to the conclusion
they want to "anycast" (aka shared unicast) their services, surely has
thought about going to a big ISP before and decided that that' not what
they want.


> Or is this discussion simply about the fact that the /32 prefix is not yours
> and you want to use your "own"?

It is - currently, talking DNS providers - about the fact that you cannot
accumulate too many server addresses in a DNS UDP packet.


> Either way, there is no difference here network wise? You get
> exactly the same reachability/redundancy.

Only if you limit your thoughts to a very small world. Sorry, but
the fallacy of your argument is so obvious that the words fail me here.


> I am against a policy that would let LIRs receive prefixes from RIRs when
> the intention is to use the prefix for anycast. I have hopefully shown that
> you don't need a dedicated prefix for that.

No. You have shown that _you_ don't need that. You try to decide here how
other people run their services. I honestly believe that's none of your
business, but up to the respective service provider. You can give them
good advice, of course. But you must be open to accepting arguments for
the way they intend to do it.




jorgen@localhost (Jørgen Hovland) wrote:

> 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.

The problem arises when the sole ISP's routing policies are insufficient
at _any_ point in time.

> Nameservers are not the only
> anycast service so it would be tricky to discuss this in general.

DNS is a special service (UDP packet size stuff) and needs a special
solution - unfortunately.




jorgen@localhost (Jørgen Hovland) wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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?
> 
> 
> Joergen Hovland
> 
> 

jorgen@localhost (Jørgen Hovland) wrote:

> >From that perspective I seem to see 2 aspects in the recent discussion:
> >
> >- you shall not receive address space for builing a service, you are to
> >  buy that from some "big-folk".
> >
> >  This is an intersting point of view, and taken to the extreme will
> >  make us end up with a _very small_ number of _very big_ entities.
> >
> >  Traditionally these things were called monopolies. Nothing I would be
> >  too happy to see coming back ;-)

You did not comment on this part. Why?