[address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> because denic is so <blank> as to be unable to find an old unused
> swamp C, does not imply that global allocation policy needs to be
> changed.

mmm.. I wouldn't mind getting the anycast address for my co-lo box.  
easy provider - independence! :)

but seriously .. IANA and the IETF have allocated these C blocks to
some services (e.g. 192.88.99.0/24).  They could do the same again if
the _service_ would be *global* and well-defined enough.  "Every
ccTLD" is probably not.  Which is why maybe just getting a /24 block
somewhere if you want to do anycast for service FOO would be just
about enough.

You know, the administrative hoops you have to jump through to get a 
"golden" /24 shouldn't be fewer than those you have to jump through to 
get a regular /24.. else we'll be facing an uprise of "anycast" 
applications.. 

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings