[address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Wed Mar 30 18:19:58 CEST 2005
> > 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. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]