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

Hay,

Randy Bush wrote:

>>- There seems to be no need for a special policy regarding IP Blocks
>>   used for anycast. Some status value ASSIGNED ANYCAST would be nice,
>>   but i guess, we need no policy
>>
>>- This whole issue is rather about Nameservers. xxTLD operators can't
>>   justify something like a /24 in IPv4 or /32 in IPv6 just for one
>>   nameserver glue record.
>>   Most other people thinking about deploying anycast services most
>>   likely have other needs or even other means of acquiring address space
>>   which is routable globally
> 
> 
> could you explain why, other than socially, the needs and resources
> of tld operators are different than those of anyone else deploying
> globally available services?

very simple - someone descided this before since a dedicated
globally valid IPv6 Assignment policy is there specially for Root 
Nameserver Operators.

So there must have been some global agreement on this issue this before.
And this does not have to do anything with Anycasting now.

<...> mind a slight sarcasm between the lines

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================