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 ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Fri Nov 11 23:44:40 CET 2005
Some final comments from me, -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering Sent: 11. november 2005 22:06 >Yes. I think we can agree that there are lots of domain service >providers that have 2, 3, maybe 5 name servers in their NS set (and those >can grow without anycasting), and that there are some that really use >up all that you can fit in those small packets, and want to provide >even *more* resiliency. Looking at DNS, I see "lots of nameservers" >primarily for root, and some gTLD/ccTLD zones. Haven't seen that for >"further down" stuff (.co.uk is "sort of ccTLD" stuff). 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. You can place them next to each other on the same rack or you can place 500 of them in your Frankfurt serverhall and 500 in Düsseldorf as long as they are in your network. You do _not_ need an anycast prefix from your RIR for this. Your growth problem is now solved. The next problem is that you want better redundancy(?). Then buy more connectivity. If you for some reason can't afford better connectivity, please look at my MCI example and put your servers elsewhere. >And really - I don't care who they are and what they do, but if they >think it's a good thing to have more than 11 different primary name >servers for whatever they are hosting, it must be important to them, >and at least to whoever is providing the funding. > >The second largest DNS zone in the world *does* sound somewhat important >to me. I don't have query numbers to compare .com and .de requests/second >(which would be more useful than sheer zone size), but I'd assume that >there are also plenty of request for .de domains. If it wasn't for the fact that I do business in Germany I couldn't care less if .de was dead or not. You can only decide what is important to you, not for the rest of the crowd. If you try you will find out that everything is important. To cover everyones needs we would need 42 billion prefixes in the global routing table. Most of it wouldn't make sense anyway, just like this anycast discussion is starting to get. Cheers, Joergen Hovland
- 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 ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]