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 ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Sun Nov 13 16:38:56 CET 2005
Having listened for a while 'cause I am neither an expert in anycasting nor in running name services for a large zone, I'd like to step back a couple of yards/meters/<put your distance unit here>. >From that perspective I seem to see 2 aspects in the recent discussion: - you shall not receive address space for builing a service, you are to buy that from some "big-folk". This is an intersting point of view, and taken to the extreme will make us end up with a _very small_ number of _very big_ entities. Traditionally these things were called monopolies. Nothing I would be too happy to see coming back ;-) - there has been th discussion regarding "anycast" but isnt this just a special(?) case of th PI-topic? I might easily have overlooked something, pls. see my initial disclaimer. Wilfried. Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Jørgen Hovland wrote: > >>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. >> >> > > What if I want to plan for more disasters than that ? Like MCI going out > of business? > > I guess I could agree with MCI to place some servers with their IP > addresses outside their network and agree with other providers to carry > my more specific routes. In order to have universal access and plan for > any network failure I would have to sign such agreement with all ISPs. > > This could be a business idea for somebody: to set up an "anycast > registry" - sign agreement with all the major ISPs to not aggregate my > addresses. Then I could offer a guaranteed minimum routability for > thoose prefixes. > > What we are discussing is really to make this mechanism available by > addressing policy. Traditionally the RIRs does not set routing policy. > > Hans Petter > > _______________________________________________ > ipv6 mailing list > ipv6 at ls.aco.net > http://noc.aco.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >
- 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 ]