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] Real multihoming or anycast?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Tue Mar 29 16:47:03 CEST 2005
> Nonetheless they want to multihome, and they want to _really_ multihome, > being that anycast instances are usually scattered all over the globe. > This implies that there must be a way to get a (however big) routable > block that's unlikely to be filtered - well, the proposal has it all. Why not learn from the lessons of radio spectrum? A fixed number of 3G frequency allocations were put up for auction (or beauty contest). Why should RIPE not offer a limited number of /32 allocations for operators of anycast fabrics? I suggest that RIPE offer 16 allocations of /32 to organizations who intend to operate diverse anycast fabrics globally to serve TLD operators and others who can benefit from an anycast fabric. Select the winners by beauty contest based on technical and commercial fitness. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Real multihoming or anycast?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]