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

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:26:20PM +0100, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> > Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
> 
> ...within an address block, this is true.  However, what is being
> talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and
> there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with
> respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.

I agree.

I would be happy to sacrifice one routing table entry per ccTLD, though,
if it increases reliability of the whole DNS system.  Speaking for my 
network only, of course.

(This is not contradicting myself, I want to point out.  The network of
the DENIC "office" is not special - but the name servers are.  The more,
the better, and there is no way to do anycasting without an additional
routing table entry).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  57882  (57753)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299