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] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Thu Jan 8 23:08:01 CET 2004
|On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:40:16AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: |> because denic is so <blank> as to be unable to find an old unused |> swamp C, does not imply that global allocation policy needs to be |> changed. | |I don't think this is the issue. They want to do Anycast, and |want to do it in an official and documented way, so people can |easily see what's going on, without resorting to "find a swamp |C" network. | |That's why I'm in favour to have a policy that permits |allocations for specific, well-defined Anycast services. That |allocations would come from a well-known block, so people |would know to not filter /24s from there (and so on). What should the cirteria to get "Anycast space" be ?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]