[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Sun Nov 13 18:34:06 CET 2005
On 13 nov 2005, at 16.47, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis at kurtis.pp.se] > Sent: 13. november 2005 15:32 > > >> 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). >> > > You will always be forced to obey the rules of whatever provider > you are > using, ISP or IXP. I get the impression that you believe ISP x's > routing > policies will always be insufficient for you. Nameservers are not > the only > anycast service so it would be tricky to discuss this in general. > But you want your nameserver to be reachable, that I know. Both > scenarios > will accomplish that with the same amount of redundancy. What kind of > routing policies do you mean? Do you want to restrict your > reachability? If you are connected to the IXP with your own peerings, you will have control of the routing policies. If you host with ISP x, you will have to follow ISP x peerings and depeerings. You claimed the two cases to be equal. I just pointed out that they are not. - kurtis -
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]