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

Thu Nov 25 15:04:24 UTC 2004

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.

>>- 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.

>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.

>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.

>>At least in Europe, when it does come to crunch time I can see the
>>RIRs being hit *very* hard with a series of lawsuits for
>>monopolistic/anti-competitive behaviour from some of these people -
>>bear in mind the financial companies will have laywers on staff and
>>simply can not afford to lose redundancy.
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, sue time! Especially funny as you want to sue an organization that
>has made up the rules through it's membership ;)
>  
>

This does happen and any procedure locking out smaller companies will be 
viewed as a highly monopolistic by the appropriate authorities. I can't 
say who as I don't know if the details are supposed to be confidential 
or not, but at least one large internet organisation (Not a 
number-allocation one) was put under pressure by the local equivalent to 
the department of commerce when it refused membership/services to someone.

>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? Such a project is doomed to failure before it's even started.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041125/06f90534/attachment.html>