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] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Antoin Verschuren
Antoin.Verschuren at sidn.nl
Wed Dec 10 12:21:40 CET 2008
PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM While I strongly support the proposal for more than 1 anycast assignment per TLD/ENUM tier1 operator, I do have some problems with the definition of the ENUM tier1 operators. Where it says: "ENUM operators as defined by the ITU" I think it should say: "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC" I wouldn't want the ITU to determine who should get address space, and the counterpart for IANA in the ENUM space is RIPE NCC. I see the ITU more in the role ICANN has with regards to TLD's, or perhaps even the US DOC. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E antoin.verschuren at sidn.nl W http://www.sidn.nl/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]