<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +0000, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
online - (e.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.olf.co.uk">www.olf.co.uk</a>, they do car finance via brokers over the
internet)
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
[snip stuff about various companies]<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Content providers (E.g. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.digex.com">www.digex.com</a>, before they were bought out
by MCI. I doubt google have 200 sites either.)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
But Digex does have more than 200 customers...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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)<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Also Google is Akamaized and doesn't thus do their own hosting.
Most likely the crawlers are in their 'own' space though.
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.google.com">www.google.com</a> CNAME <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.google.akadns.net">www.google.akadns.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.google.akadns.net">www.google.akadns.net</a> A 216.239.59.99
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.google.akadns.net">www.google.akadns.net</a> A 216.239.59.104
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Google just use akamaized DNS. They don't akamaize the actual content -
whois on the IPs above will show that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Indeed. However, at the moment to get any allocation at all you need
200 sites or suballocations.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Yeah, sue time! Especially funny as you want to sue an organization that
has made up the rules through it's membership ;)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1101386537.30688.25.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
</body>
</html>