[address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Sun Jan 11 15:28:41 CET 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> Second, with >> the definition above, if I am an ISP that decides to anycast my >> DNS-servers, do I get the "anycast space"? > > That's why there is a protocol limitation. If you're an ISP and > already > have 10 (!) distinct name servers in different PA blocks and different > countries, and want to increase your resiliency further, this might > be a viable approach. ok, agreed. >> Now, if what we are trying to solve is anycasting for TLD >> DNS-servers in the RIPE NCC Service region, why don't we just write >> that? > > I would be fine with such a proposal. > > So it could look like this: > > Criteria: > - Anycast > - technical requirements (UDP record full) > - ccTLD or gTLD operator > > Assignment: > - /24 "status: ASSIGNED ANYCAST" out of well-known range > - all anycast blocks (in RIPE land) come from the same range fine with me. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQAFdoKarNKXTPFCVEQJ/7wCcD6QXvKQE7y91vn7c1Gb05LzzxEIAnjDb FdIBVIIPHw4ntZjCmaMgL5xk =I+4g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]