[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Jeroen Massar jeroen at unfix.org
Thu Nov 17 12:26:40 CET 2005
Mohsen Souissi wrote: <SNIP> > Now, I'm surprised that we are going back to the original issue and > asking to first solve the PI problem... <SNIP> > (cc)TLD need an allocation (whether it is a /32 or whatever "routable > prefix") because they need to do anycast, full stop. "example.net DNS servers needs an allocation (whether it is a /32 or whatever "routable prefix") because they need to do anycast, full stop." What makes .de more important then example.net DNS servers? I am quite sure that a large part of the world can live perfectly without complete *.de (especially older french people :) but would hate it when google.com (they have already a /32) or ebay.com or say cnn.com (the latter who don't have an allocation yet), are not reachable. These kind of sites also require what you want with 'anycast', a server as close as possible to the enduser for resiliency, latency, DDoS etc... For that matter .com/.net/.org don't have it (yet) either. My points for this, which are mostly also reflected in the proposal: - Special policy only for accredited ccTLD's - Give them a /32 (bigger is only filtering nightmare already) (in another message) Michael Dillon wrote: > If AFNIC and DENIC form a consortium to operate anycast > deployments for TLD operators, then that is a different > question entirely. I think it would be right for RIPE to > allocate addresses to such a consortium just like we now > do with other network operators. You mean clustering up all ccTLD's into 1 prefix? Then why not have a single /32 with a caching recursive DNS server which answers to all queries, see section 4 of: http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-dnsop-service-00.txt But proposing that gets one into 4 holy wars I understood, especially the 'anycast' part seems to be very hurting to a number of people... Note also that clustering them together causes loss of diversity. Thus a /32 per ccTLD seems appropriate here. <SNIP> > I still hope this debate will lead to a concrete solution within the > coming 3 years! Only 3? :) If you really want to get over all of this use the current policy: just define DENIC and anything else as being an LIR (just pay some cash), providing end connectivity to 200+ *planned* sites. Those 200 sites consist out of: - 13 /48's for the anycasted PoPs - 1 /48 for the main office - X /48's for branch offices. - 100+ VPN connections to endsites (for management, employee 'dailin' etc). Done. Please read through: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/ and see what kind of organisations have already got an allocation. Then go over to your favourite colo facility and see what equipment they have. I am quite sure that quite many don't have a lot of equipment (or customers). But they have planned it... and back to everybodies normal schedule.... Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 238 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20051117/40820fdc/attachment.sig>
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]