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): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Wed May 9 21:58:10 CEST 2007
On 9 May 2007, at 6:39pm, Andy Davidson 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. If you aren't the LIR then you probably need the agreement of the LIR before deaggregating their allocation. I suspect that lots of organisations would like to spread the DNS load but aren't LIRs. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]