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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:26:20PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > > Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
> > 
> > ...within an address block, this is true.  However, what is being
> > talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and
> > there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with
> > respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 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.
> 
> (This is not contradicting myself, I want to point out.  The 
> network of the DENIC "office" is not special - but the name servers are. 
>  The more, the better, and there is no way to do anycasting without an additional routing table entry).

Do you mean one (1) /32 that can be cut up into smaller
allocations (/48) which then should appear in the global
routing table, allowing the services that reside in those
blocks to be anycast? Or do you mean multiple /32's as the
case is for the moment*?

* - list will be presented at the upcoming RIPE meeting in the IPv6-WG.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen

iQA/AwUBP/w7TCmqKFIzPnwjEQKFVQCdGlarkZfl5JpNemb67/+BCH7e9hQAnRIZ
TaEiEmlyYzeW/IC9b6T0kUsT
=ViVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----