[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Fri Nov 11 19:01:46 CET 2005
Hi, On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:20:44PM +0100, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > Company X/DENIC may contact company Y/MCI. MCI may place 500 DENIC servers > around the world at their collocation facilities. MCI may then assign DENIC > one /64 prefix from their /32 prefix which will be routed to the closest > DENIC server in MCIs network. > Would this be a suitable solution? This /32 has not been given to > MCI by the RIR explicit for anycast purposes. I'm not sure whether you understand what this is all about. DENIC is providing a public service (namely: DNS for the .de TLD) - and *the whole world* wants to reach their DNS servers. (No different to .com and other large TLDs) Due to the fact that DNS has packet size limits (the DNS WG says so, and it's not the address policy WG's job to know DNS better than the DNS WG), anycast is a necessary workaround if a DNS operator wants to increase reliability and reachability for their DNS servers - after they have exhausted all other options (like "using very short server names" and so on). So where's the benefit if DENIC sets up something inside MCI's network that only MCI customers can see? And *if* the route is leaked outside, what is gained, except people will have to maintain explicit white-lists ("hey, this /64 is DENIC-anycast, so we permit it, while not permitting other /64s")? I don't really understand what you are worrying about, and why, and how this "solution" is going to help anyone. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]