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] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allowallocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Wed Jan 7 19:14:12 CET 2004
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Gert Doering wrote: > 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. .. until someone figures out that, hey, each ccTLD actually requires more entries (e.g., 3), because having just one prefix for all the servers increases the danger/threat of a routing system hiccup for a prefix.. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allowallocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]