[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Sun Nov 13 16:38:56 CET 2005
Having listened for a while 'cause I am neither an expert in anycasting nor in running name services for a large zone, I'd like to step back a couple of yards/meters/<put your distance unit here>. >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 ;-) - there has been th discussion regarding "anycast" but isnt this just a special(?) case of th PI-topic? I might easily have overlooked something, pls. see my initial disclaimer. Wilfried. Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Jørgen Hovland wrote: > >>The next problem is that you want better redundancy(?). Then buy more >>connectivity. If you for some reason can't afford better connectivity, >>please look at my MCI example and put your servers elsewhere. >> >> > > What if I want to plan for more disasters than that ? Like MCI going out > of business? > > I guess I could agree with MCI to place some servers with their IP > addresses outside their network and agree with other providers to carry > my more specific routes. In order to have universal access and plan for > any network failure I would have to sign such agreement with all ISPs. > > This could be a business idea for somebody: to set up an "anycast > registry" - sign agreement with all the major ISPs to not aggregate my > addresses. Then I could offer a guaranteed minimum routability for > thoose prefixes. > > What we are discussing is really to make this mechanism available by > addressing policy. Traditionally the RIRs does not set routing policy. > > Hans Petter > > _______________________________________________ > ipv6 mailing list > ipv6 at ls.aco.net > http://noc.aco.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]