This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Conrad
david.conrad at icann.org
Wed Aug 8 16:04:06 CEST 2007
Hi, On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:38 PM, Greg L. wrote: > I would say IPv4 anycast /24 PI must be allocated for anycasting > DNS service only. You simply can't add more nameservers if you hit > the max limit... The term "overkill" comes to mind. How many name servers does one actually need (anycast or not), particularly given the concept of caching? > The rules for IPv6 anycast allocations must be not that strict in > the future... why? The address space will be more than enough, the > router HW will be more powerful to handle large routing tables ... While router hardware will undoubtedly be more powerful, the question of whether or not BGP will be able to converge with everybody and their great aunt having PI space is still open. Then there is the question of whether or not people will be happy with the O(10) ISPs capable of affording the hardware/power/cooling of the future DFZ routers (have you priced top-end routers recently?). This proposal seems a bit on the extreme side to me. Rgds, -drc
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]