[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allowallocations to critical infrastructure

Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Gert Doering wrote:
> > I would be happy to sacrifice one routing table entry per ccTLD, though,
> > if it increases reliability of the whole DNS system.  Speaking for my
> > network only, of course.
> 
> .. until someone figures out that, hey, each ccTLD actually requires
> more entries (e.g., 3), because having just one prefix for all the
> servers increases the danger/threat of a routing system hiccup for a
> prefix..

I don't think so.  The same prefix is announced in many places.  If
one of them is going down no problem.  It is very unlikely that all
go down because there is no single instance.

The only thing that could happen is that ie. one large ISP filters that
particular netblock.  But then you've probably always still got a couple
of the normal unicast nameservers around in the zone.

-- 
Andre