Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)

[Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>]

On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 15:04 +0000, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +0000, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> >   
> > > - Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
> > > online - (e.g. www.olf.co.uk, they do car finance via brokers over the
> > > internet)
> > >     
> [snip stuff about various companies]
>
> You're looking at where the web pages are hosted. That's not the same
> as where mission-critical operations run from. (In fact, there is very
> good reason to keep your public web pages seperate as they are more
> likely to be subject to a DoS attack) mBlox for instance use AS30894
> for actual operations - the web page is elsewhere for mostly
> historical reasons in that case.

Which announces one single /24 (256 IP's) and single-homed over PSINet
who _had_ IPv6. And you want to sacrifice a /32 for that?
Also this is a clearly an _end_ site.

Btw, Internet is spelled "Internet" and not "Intenret" see your
nichandle :)

> > > - Content providers (E.g. www.digex.com, before they were bought out
> > >  by MCI. I doubt google have 200 sites either.)
> > >     
> >
> > But Digex does have more than 200 customers...
> >   
>
> That's not the requirement - the requirement is 200 sites/allocations.
> (I'm talking about digex.com the hosting company here - not digex.net,
> the internet access portion that became Intermedia)
>
> > Also Google is Akamaized and doesn't thus do their own hosting.
> > Most likely the crawlers are in their 'own' space though.
> >
> > www.google.com          CNAME   www.google.akadns.net
> > www.google.akadns.net   A       216.239.59.99
> > www.google.akadns.net   A       216.239.59.104
> >   
>
> Google just use akamaized DNS. They don't akamaize the actual content
> - whois on the IPs above will show that.

Google is also present at a *large* number of IX's and have their own
intrastructure and is quite multihomed etc, unlike aforementioned
endsite.

> > But most of the above need multi-homing, not address independence.
> > None of the above neither have a need for 2^(128-32) IP addresses.
> > They would need 1-<sites> /48's, but not 65535 of those.
> >   
>
> Indeed. However, at the moment to get any allocation at all you need
> 200 sites or suballocations.

No, you need a *plan* for that many allocations. You do not need them
*now*.

> > Notez bien, that even if you get a /32 or so, if you have multiple sites
> > around the globe, are you going to announce this /32 in one chunk and
> > are they going to do the traffic between them theirselves?
> >   
>
> Depends, at the moment some people do announce /24s for individual
> locations. Some also announce a covering /19 or /20 to make sure even
> if their announcements are being filtered that they're still
> reachable, and route the packets between locations using whatever
> methods they might have available. (Fixed links, ISDN dial backup or
> even VPN) Of course, if you're anycasting or similar it doesn't
> actually matter which data centre the packets get to, as long as they
> get to one of them.

In IPv6 it is common to filter everything outside of /16-/48.
Apparently though there are quite a number of ISP's who do not know what
the term 'aggregation' is though.

The range of the filter though will most likely depend on who you are
and how much money you bring with you onto the table.

<SNIP americanisation>

> > Now I repeat my question (again): did any of the above companies even
> > try to get an IPv6 allocation?
> >
> > Or for that matter did any of the above do any IPv6 trails at all?
>
> No, because they can't. Who do you suggest they approach for such an
> allocation?

I suggest you try and ask them, RIPE's address is hostmaster () ripe net
Tell them about your situation and ask them if there would be any
problems. For that singlehomed /24 though I guess you won't have much of
a chance, but any non-endsite with more should have.

For anybody still not getting it: _ASK_ your favourite RIR.
Before thinking of sueing them without trying, as mentioned you will be
sueing yourself as the membership, which includes yourself, has made up
the rules ;)

>  Such a project is doomed to failure before it's even started.

You haven't tried.... I am wasting my time...

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part