[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Sun Nov 13 15:32:24 CET 2005
On 13 nov 2005, at 15.20, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > Take the following: > > 1 server at ISP x in London. /32 announced by ISP x's ASN. Your ip is > assigned from this /32. > 1 server at ISP x in Amsterdam. /32 announced by ISP x's ASN. Your > ip is > assigned from this /32. > > and > > 1 server at ISP g in London. /32 announced by your ASN through ISP > g. It is > your /32 > 1 server at ISP k in Amsterdam. /32 announced by your ASN through > ISP k. It > is your /32 > > > What is really the difference here? Yes, ISP x, g or k can go > bankrupt so > you loose that redundancy in the first scenario. Any others? I > can't think > of any. Either way, there is no difference here network wise? You get > exactly the same reachability/redundancy. So, should we alter the > address > policy because ISP x can go bankrupt and we need redundancy for > that? You > still have 10 more ISPs you have placed your servers at if you use > all 11 > IPs. 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). - kurtis -
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]