Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Thu May 10 13:28:02 CEST 2007
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tobias Cremer Hi, >> Only the organization hosting the DNS is eligible, i.e. a data centre >> operator who wants to provide hosting services is not eligible? > > Not even with the existing policy. This depends on the definition. If a network announce their /16 prefix world-wide and decide to assign a customer a /29 for the use of anycast, they are entirely free to do so. The internal routing for the /29 within this network obviously needs to be configured for anycast use directed to the closest of the 15 different datacenters. The /29 is of course not announced to dfz, only the aggregate /16 is. Is the problem with this method perhaps that DNS operators don't seem to operate a real network and they are not willing to let the network operator to it for them? Or is the network operator unwilling to do it? Or is it just a bad plan? J
- Previous message (by thread): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]