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

> 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