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

On 20 Jan, 2004, at 20:07, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> 	Joao,
>
> On 2004-01-20, at 16.50, Joao Damas wrote:
>
>> This goal could very well be achieved by keeping the addresses of the
>> servers you are already using and migrating all other active IP's out
>> of the /24 that contains the address you want to "anycast". After all,
>> none of the root servers that are anycasting today have renumbered
>> (one that is not anycasting today will renumber soon because they
>> can't apply what I just described, which was unfortunate).
>>
>
> This was actually spelled out as a problem with NEW services (TLDs)
> moving to anycast. That is people who do not have their own addresses
> at all at this point.

No, it was spelt as a new deployment strategy for a running service. In 
particular the proponent does have address space already though this 
should not have impact on the discussion.

In any case, the point is that the problem is a policy one: obtaining a 
/24 in which there will be only a few (<5) active IPs. It  is not a 
routing issue.
In addition, in some cases, this can be worked around by moving service 
IPs around until you have a clean /24 for this sort of use.
Last, Gert missed the point by reducing the discussion to only the /24 
that would be used for the service IP, because with anycast you will 
always need a different IP address to be able to access each of the 
anycast instances, and as for the service /24, some people may be able 
to work around this using address space they already have and some will 
not, so any policy discussion needs to take into account both 
requirements as they are not independent.

Joao