[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 ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Jun 13 09:08:49 CEST 2007
On 12 Jun 2007, at 22:23, Joao Damas wrote: >> I think we have a well defined policy on what to do when someone >> needs some PI in order to run an Anycasted DNS service. We set >> out a family of requirements based on geographic diversity, for >> instance, that clearly states what should be in place when a >> request for PI for DNS use is made. > They could also state their case in this wg. Sounds far more > reasonable. I disagree; its not reasonable for someone to have to state their case for why they need resources on a -wg mailing list. A sponsoring LIR should perform the function of deciding whether an application is appropriate. I'm simply suggesting that there's a hole in current policy (or is there ? Does this resource requirement get covered by 'PI needed to multihome'), that we can look to fill with this real world example. Andy
- 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 ]