[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre Chapuis
chapuis at ip-plus.net
Mon Jan 12 16:43:04 CET 2004
Agreed, And what about defining an address-range where every ISP opens its filter up to /29 (as an example) ? This would deal with both anycast and address-space conservation. Let's show that we (as ISPs) are not bound to the /24 forever ! André At 10:23 12.01.2004, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >This discussion is *not* about address policy, >it really is about ** routing policy! ** >The goal is to get prefixes propagated. >They could live in any odd part of the address space! > >Routing policy is made by ISPs. (period) > >In order to provide hints to ISPs making such policy I have previolusly >proposed a *registry* for "special" prefixes with some general >categories like: > > - root server > - TLD server > - second level name server > - internet search engine > - other important prefix (see remarks section ;-) > - .... > >Such a registry could be provided by the RIRs and used by the ISPs when >defining and implementing their routing policy. The art here is to >design the categories and to decide which ones can be policed. It is >easy to determine and to check regularly if a prefix contains name >servers for instance. Other categories should be "self-declaration". >ISPs can then decide if and how to use such a registry. > >Is this something that provides added value to ISPs? >Is it something that is useful for those using such prefixes? > >Daniel > > >PS: If getting any address space at all is a problem for these applications, >this needs to be addressed. Maybe it is already addressed by adjusting >the "initial" usage requirements back to "nil" or some reasonable low level and >reducing the initial allocation size. > >This is a different discussion which belongs here, but I do not reeally follow >it anymore, so pardon me if I just assume it is moving along. -------------------------------------------------------- Andre Chapuis IP+ Backbone Engineering AS3303 Swisscom Enterprise Solutions Ltd Genfergasse 14, CH-3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis at ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 --------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]