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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> Second, with
>> the definition above, if I am an ISP that decides to anycast my
>> DNS-servers, do I get the "anycast space"?
>
> That's why there is a protocol limitation.  If you're an ISP and 
> already
> have 10 (!) distinct name servers in different PA blocks and different
> countries, and want to increase your resiliency further, this might
> be a viable approach.

ok, agreed.

>> 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?
>
> I would be fine with such a proposal.
>
> So it could look like this:
>
> Criteria:
>  - Anycast
>  - technical requirements (UDP record full)
>  - ccTLD or gTLD operator
>
> Assignment:
>  - /24 "status: ASSIGNED ANYCAST" out of well-known range
>  - all anycast blocks (in RIPE land) come from the same range

fine with me.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQAFdoKarNKXTPFCVEQJ/7wCcD6QXvKQE7y91vn7c1Gb05LzzxEIAnjDb
FdIBVIIPHw4ntZjCmaMgL5xk
=I+4g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----