Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction

[Marco Hogewoning marcoh@localhost]

On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:48:06AM +0100,
> Ond??ej Surý <ondrej.sury@localhost wrote
> a message of 9 lines which said:
>
> > We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modifiedto allow /24
> > *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* togTLD/ccTLD.  First reason
> > behind this is that one PI is not reallyenough and it's blocking us
> > to deploy more DNS serversand make our TLD service more reliable.
> As a TLD, I agree. ".fr" has currently two anycast nodes (managed
> outside, so they do not use "our" addresses) and plan to add more and
> to manage them ourselves. We will therefore need more than one PI  
> prefix.
Maybe I understand, maybe I don't...but isn't the whole idea of  
anycast that you create redundancy by adding more machines/locations  
in the same address space ? So what exactly are you trying to gain by  
adding multiple anycast blocks, that's not exactly clear with me.
Marco