[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Hans Petter Holen hph at oslo.net
Sun Nov 13 00:29:53 CET 2005
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-wg Archives ]