[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Thu Nov 17 12:43:21 CET 2005
> Note also that clustering them together causes loss of diversity. > Thus a /32 per ccTLD seems appropriate here. I didn't suggest clustering all TLD servers together. I suggested that two TLD server operators could cooperate in operating a joint anycast deployment and offer the use of this to other TLD operators. I expect that some other organizations will see this as a business opportunity and will also operate separate anycast deployments. Then, TLDs which are concerned about diversity will use two or more of these anycast network operators. I believe that a network operator should be able to justify a portable prefix of normal size and an AS number. But I don't think that an end user like DENIC should be able to claim that they are "special" and get the same address prefix. I also don't believe there should be any microallocations at all. > 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. Combine AFNIC's servers and a couple of other TLDs and you will easily meet that number of anycasted DNS servers. --Michael Dillon
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]