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

On 13 nov 2005, at 15.20, Jørgen Hovland wrote:

> Take the following:
>
> 1 server at ISP x in London. /32 announced by ISP x's ASN. Your ip is
> assigned from this /32.
> 1 server at ISP x in Amsterdam.  /32 announced by ISP x's ASN. Your  
> ip is
> assigned from this /32.
>
> and
>
> 1 server at ISP g in London. /32 announced by your ASN through ISP  
> g. It is
> your /32
> 1 server at ISP k in Amsterdam. /32 announced by your ASN through  
> ISP k. It
> is your /32
>
>
> What is really the difference here? Yes, ISP x, g or k can go  
> bankrupt so
> you loose that redundancy in the first scenario. Any others? I  
> can't think
> of any. Either way, there is no difference here network wise? You get
> exactly the same reachability/redundancy. So, should we alter the  
> address
> policy because ISP x can go bankrupt and we need redundancy for  
> that? You
> still have 10 more ISPs you have placed your servers at if you use  
> all 11
> IPs.


In the first scenario you are forced to the routing policies of ISP x  
and only to the locations of ISP x. In the second example you can co- 
locate, connect to and IXP and do your own routing decisions as well  
as be present at locations you choose (without "vasting" or even  
having to go to 11 servers).

- kurtis -