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/[email protected]/
[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 something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Nov 16 19:35:52 CET 2005
* Gert Doering: >> Gert, you can configure 1000 anycast servers, all with the same IP address, >> in your own network no matter how small/large your network is. > > That's the point. DENIC isn't doing this for themselves. They do this > for *you* (and for me, and even for Randy). >From a technical perspective, there is no reason to give DENIC special treatment. I would even say that DENIC (or even DNS) is merely a red herring. Has it already been decided that it's a good idea to port the IPv4 anycasting scheme to IPv6? Wouldn't it be better to start over with something which is more sound from a technical perspective? Just because addressing tweaks can solve a perceived problem, it doesn't follow that a solution based on addressing is the best one. This might be simply one of those "IPv6 will really take off when you do X" things. But given that IPv6 among DNS servers is rather widespread (in relative terms, of course), I'm not sure if this move is really necessary.
- 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 something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]