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@ls.aco.net http://noc.aco.net/mailman/listinfo/ipv6