[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Joao Damas
Joao_Damas at isc.org
Wed Mar 23 14:39:03 CET 2005
On 23 Mar, 2005, at 10:36, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > I don't see why RIPE need to assign a /32 when the other regions are > /48s? I would also like to add that these assignments should be made > out of a single block. What would the problem be with the /32, really? Counting the addresses? Howeverm, the "out of a single block" is the part that really bothers me. Putting supposedly "critical infrastructure" as it is called elsewhere in a block that makes them all share fate in the event of network "optimisations" is still a bad idea. > > Also, to follow the "have you considered private address space" (or > whatever the exact formulation is ) question in the PI application, I > would like to require the applicant to consider using an existing > anycasting service. Sounds like a good idea, actually. Joao
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]