[address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Wed Oct 29 07:40:37 CET 2008
On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:10 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:48:06AM +0100, > Ond??ej Surý <ondrej.sury at nic.cz> wrote > a message of 9 lines which said: > >> We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modifiedto allow /24 >> *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* togTLD/ccTLD. First reason >> behind this is that one PI is not reallyenough and it's blocking us >> to deploy more DNS serversand make our TLD service more reliable. > > As a TLD, I agree. ".fr" has currently two anycast nodes (managed > outside, so they do not use "our" addresses) and plan to add more and > to manage them ourselves. We will therefore need more than one PI > prefix. Maybe I understand, maybe I don't...but isn't the whole idea of anycast that you create redundancy by adding more machines/locations in the same address space ? So what exactly are you trying to gain by adding multiple anycast blocks, that's not exactly clear with me. Marco
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]