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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: 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] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephane Bortzmeyer
bortzmeyer at nic.fr
Thu Jan 8 10:58:16 CET 2004
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 08:14:12PM +0200, Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi> wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > .. 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.. Most ccTLD plan to anycast only some of their servers and to keep at least two unicast machines, for this very reason.
- 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] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]