[address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Fri Jan 9 08:34:11 CET 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> |That's why I'm in favour to have a policy that permits >> |allocations for specific, well-defined Anycast services. That >> |allocations would come from a well-known block, so people >> |would know to not filter /24s from there (and so on). >> >> What should the cirteria to get "Anycast space" be ? > > I had a proposal that nobody commented on :-) - it didn't mention > "critical" anywhere, so maybe it wasn't sexy enough. > > I suggested: > -------------------------- > - Anycast deployment > - multiple distributed servers bring benefits for the whole community > - due to protocol limitations this cannot be done using other > approaches > (like "put up 100 servers at various ISP networks, using PA space > from > those ISPs") > -------------------------- I think this has the same problem as "critical infrastructure" in that you now need to define "benefits for the whole community". Second, with the definition above, if I am an ISP that decides to anycast my DNS-servers, do I get the "anycast space"? To be honest, I think you need to nail down what we are talking about. Maybe we will need a "Anycasted RIPE NCC Service Region TLD DNS-server space". > b) can be evaluated by a RIPE NCC hostmaster, so there must be clear > and *easy* rules - it needs not be easy to get the space, but to > say "you go - you don't" should be easy. I think that anycasting is a problem (been there, done that, waiting for the t-shirt) when it comes to getting address space. I am sure you can find a swamp C-block, as Randy suggested - BUT I do think there is a point in registering a block correctly and getting it in a legitimate way. Now, if what we are trying to solve is anycasting for TLD DNS-servers in the RIPE NCC Service region, why don't we just write that? If it turns out there is a problem of anycasting Goolge-servers in the region that is considered to be painful enough that we all think they should get special treatment, let's write that up then. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/5ZdqarNKXTPFCVEQKcewCeMO17WmDzCOXaDARCnknpRLvxROcAoIS8 BYza7ha5BypTwxGGNfdbUDMQ =UZvo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]