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

> I am therefore against any proposal about anycast prefix allocations no
> matter whom and what it concerns.  Do whatever you want between your 
peers
> if your agreement permits; just don?t put the prefix in the dfz. I don't
> think it belongs there.

I think that some anycast prefixes *DO* belong in the dfz. 
However, I think that it is wrong to give out anycast
prefix allocations to organizations whose only intent
is to run their own internal services. The .de TLD is
proposing that they should get a prefix just for their
own anycast services.

Instead, I think that RIPE and other RIRs should give
out a small number of prefix allocations to "network operators"
who intend to run anycast network services for their customers.
Does anyone see the parallel with Internet access network
operators who run networks to provide Internet access to
their customers?

In theory, an anycast operator will sell anycast services
to other organizations. Those organizations will place their
servers in facilities where the anycast operator has some 
kind of presence, i.e. a router and a rack. The organizations
such as DENIC, will receive a *SUBSET* of the anycast prefix
for their servers but that subset will not be visible outside
of the anycast operator's network.

If customers, such as DENIC, do not feel that a single anycast
network operator can supply the coverage that they require then
they can buy services from more than one anycast network operator.
It is interesting to note that domain hosting uses the DNS 
protocol which allows for a server to have up to 13 unique 
IP addresses. Theoretically a domain hosting company like 
DENIC could use the services of 13 different anycast operators.

If a company like DENIC was willing to sign an undertaking
with RIPE that they would offer the use of their own anycast
architecture commercially to other organizations, then DENIC
should also be able to qualify for an anycast prefix allocation.

--Michael Dillon