This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or so mething else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Fri Nov 11 19:27:38 CET 2005
jorgen at hovland.cx (Jørgen Hovland) wrote: > Company X/DENIC may contact company Y/MCI. MCI may place 500 DENIC servers > around the world at their collocation facilities. MCI may then assign DENIC > one /64 prefix from their /32 prefix which will be routed to the closest > DENIC server in MCIs network. > Would this be a suitable solution? This /32 has not been given to > MCI by the RIR explicit for anycast purposes. Vendor/ISP dependence has never been a solution for better availability. Michael and you are somewhat off the track IMHO. Read Gert's comment, too. Yours, Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or so mething else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]