[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed Mar 23 16:18:59 CET 2005
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 10:58:18AM +0100, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > I myself would prefer a defined range (say, a /32 block out of which > /48s are allocated), but I seem to be a minority with that opinion. > This range would allow operators to exclude it from their filters. I totally agree. Derriving policy from prefix length (at least in the range up to /48) is just bogus and shouldn't be supported by issuing /32s to guarrantee routability. The folks filtering ANYTHING longer than /32 or /35 are just wrong. A /48 is far more than enough. > > I don't see why RIPE need to assign a /32 when the other regions are > > /48s? I would also like to add that these assignments should be made > > out of a single block. > > Joining the minority? ;-) I certainly do. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]