[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

Hi,


On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:

<snip>

> Technical justification for this policy

<snip>

> Cons:
>
> 1.      Accepting a number of IPv4/24 and IPv6/32 allocations for critical
> network
> infrastructures does not align with the traditional address conservation
> efforts. With
> anycasting it is very likely that only a few addresses from the entire
> assignment would
> be used.

Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
IPv6 usage growth will also transform conservation of IPv4 in a non-issue.
How many ccTLDs/gTLDs exist? Isnt this number easy to identify?


> 2.      RIPE document 233 dated from  24th May 2002 says: "Although it is
> undesirable to
> give special status to any IP (IPv4 or IPv6) address block, it was agreed
> by the
> community that the particular need defined in this document is the only
> justifiable
> exception to that general principle."

It pretty much justifies it.

<snip>

I can also second gert's advice: focus on "anycast" to sharpen up the
policies...
Hope this can be done in 2004.


Regards,

./Carlos
--------------                             IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt
            Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (131586/456), naming (millions) and... people!"