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] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Jun 13 09:08:49 CEST 2007
On 12 Jun 2007, at 22:23, Joao Damas wrote: >> I think we have a well defined policy on what to do when someone >> needs some PI in order to run an Anycasted DNS service. We set >> out a family of requirements based on geographic diversity, for >> instance, that clearly states what should be in place when a >> request for PI for DNS use is made. > They could also state their case in this wg. Sounds far more > reasonable. I disagree; its not reasonable for someone to have to state their case for why they need resources on a -wg mailing list. A sponsoring LIR should perform the function of deciding whether an application is appropriate. I'm simply suggesting that there's a hole in current policy (or is there ? Does this resource requirement get covered by 'PI needed to multihome'), that we can look to fill with this real world example. Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for Not-DNS Anycast.
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]