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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On onsdag, jan 7, 2004, at 17:32 Europe/Stockholm, Gert Doering wrote:

>
> 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).

We solved this for IPv4 more or less with the PI-TF. Perhaps we should 
take this on as a point for IPv6. Agreed that it's not really the same 
problem, but partly the same methods could be used.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP/xUz6arNKXTPFCVEQLOpACfQn/IkejCIeuGrFMOK/Bs7R5w8eMAmwai
4HIoOL8SU+9O40pbPTzVdlif
=lzjl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----