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

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: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20051117/40820fdc/attachment.sig>