[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 ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Wed Mar 23 22:08:08 CET 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2005-03-23, at 14.23, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Well, this can be argued the otherway around as well. We know that >> ISPs >> filter out previously unused space, and that they are not very active >> in updating those filters when IANA starts allocating out of new >> blocks. Having all in well-known block would limit that. > > ...wouldn't we/you/they/all have to do some filtering the "other way > 'round" if all of those prefixes are contained in _one_ superblock to > guard against someone/something announcing (and potentially black- > holeing(sp?)) a route for that /32? Eh, I would assume there is no /32 to announce and that more specifics will always win. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQkHau6arNKXTPFCVEQKUhgCfWIZjB4+fjTez5hZNa/4pYPbCqLUAoJsI 0HcVTYcqA0SIVDxYFEuONSBk =mmQ3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- 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 ]