[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 ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Thu Mar 24 15:10:47 CET 2005
On 24-mrt-05, at 15:06, Joao Damas wrote: > Regarding the issue of flap damp(en)ing parameters, I think we should > really revisit the flap damp(en)ing recommendations again at RIPE 50. It should happen before doing anything with regard to this proposal, though. And what kind of changes do you imagine? > PS: regarding entries in the routing table and the pollution it > causes, keep an eye on RFCs coming soon. Do you have the draft names? That saves me the waiting. :-) > PS: regarding the use of "wrong DNS software", the TLD operator is > running *SERVERS* and providing services to resolvers/users. The best > they can do is provide as good a service as they can to their > consumers, not preach to them about them running the wrong client side > software. We shouldn't go out of our way to help people who don't help themselves. Inflating the routing table because DNS software doesn't do what it should do is WRONG.
- 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 ]