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] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Wed Apr 25 17:21:24 CEST 2007
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: >> Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? > >The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only" >in it. It's not creating new policy. I understand. >> I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? > >What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today? I assume very few, but I was more curious and I'm not objecting to anything. I am not too fond of policies that are so restricted to certain types of technology. It may prevent innovative and/or competitive new solutions to be deployed to the masses. So sometimes I wonder why IP assignment policies specify layer 7 technology at all. j
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]