About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

RE: Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

  • From: Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 13:28:02 +0200

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [
] 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

 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community