[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

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 -