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] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Tue Jun 15 16:20:09 CEST 2004
>> There has been some confusion on whether this is "PI". It is not, it's >> "anycast space", and should be tagged as such in the database, to help >> people recognizing these special blocks immediately as such. The usual >> rules apply: "if the criteria for allocations do no longer apply, the >> address block should be returned" (even if that is unlikely to happen >> very often in practice). >> > >Don;t know if there is a real need to tag things like this in the DB, >but I am not going to argue either way. If there is a "real" difference as compared to PI (which I'm still not convinced :-), _and_ a "special" provision for reclaiming those addresses, then I think the answer should be YES. Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]