[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 ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Thu Mar 24 06:53:01 CET 2005
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > I would also be very happy if RIPE would charge enough money to people > wanting to do this to make them consider whether they really need it. Agreed.. but unfortunately, RIRs operate (typically) on a cost-recovery basis.. FWIW, I think it makes perfect sense to give each of these their own /32. Arguments about conservation are IMHO bogus when we're talking about one-in-4-billion allocations. That allows people to filter just fine, has better failure modes (as Joao pointed out), and does not have the concern Iljitsch noted. I guess the folks opposed to using /32's are mainly the ones which want to inject their own (non-related) /48's and would like the operators to drop the "we don't accept anything past /32 or /35 unless very well justified" filters. Which are a good thing, but out of scope for discussion on this list. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- 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 ]