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] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): Fwd: [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 ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed May 9 17:39:02 CEST 2007
On 9 May 2007, at 14:54, Jeroen Massar wrote: > If you have 1 zone to serve, and you request a PI block for that, I > don't really see a real justification. What about if it's one very popular zone, and you want to get dns for it topologically close to as many end users as possible ? There's nothing to stop you breaking off a bit of your PA and getting that announced at lots of places where you host an anycast instance, but now we're causing deaggregation. -- Andy Davidson - ( http://www.andyd.net/ )
- Previous message (by thread): Fwd: [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 ]