Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Sat Jan 10 16:55:44 CET 2004
> - There seems to be no need for a special policy regarding IP Blocks > used for anycast. Some status value ASSIGNED ANYCAST would be nice, > but i guess, we need no policy > > - This whole issue is rather about Nameservers. xxTLD operators can't > justify something like a /24 in IPv4 or /32 in IPv6 just for one > nameserver glue record. > Most other people thinking about deploying anycast services most > likely have other needs or even other means of acquiring address space > which is routable globally could you explain why, other than socially, the needs and resources of tld operators are different than those of anyone else deploying globally available services? randy
- Previous message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]