Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
[..]
> Currently, the IPv4 Anycast policy seems to accept 99.6% wasted address
> space as OK. I am suggesting that the policy should try to reduce that
> waste, by offering a /24 to organizations which provide Anycast hosting
> services. Since you can't legitimately offer such a service without
> having some minimum number of data centre locations, then the policy
> could specify a minimum number. And if you gain more than 250 or so
> customers and need another /24 then that should be easy to get.

This sounds VERY acceptable to me, and IMHO this should definitely be
incorporated into this new policy. This is the real justification that
can be very easily verified by RIPE NCC to see if the requester really
has a need for this address space. It can then indeed also be applied
for other services that benefit from an anycast construct.

Also, for the DB WG, should there maybe be a special way of notating
anycast prefixes in the route/route6 object!? This way, when one does a
whois it will pop up showing that the prefix is anycasted, and possibly
from where, when documented. This allows for better debugging, otherwise
you customer might be reporting "issues to reach X or Y", while it
actually is going somewhere completely different for you. Of course
traceroute is always a help there too, but how many customers know how
to use that ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070510/3af3516b/attachment.sig>