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