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

> 
> |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 ?
> 

	well, if they are in a wellknown block (and w/o authenticated
	routing) then its pretty simple to hijack said prefix for
	local use.  And perhaps more to the point, if everything is
	in said wkp, then blackholing the entire prefix makes installing
	local policy -dirt simple- ...  as a blackhat, I would prefer
	to have every "critical infrastructure" component densely packed
	into a single prefix.

	YMMV of course.

--bill