[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

> Btw, I'd like to remind some of this mailing-list readers that the
> request of DENIC is not isolated since AFNIC asked even before
> Adndreas first draft for a constency between all RIRs in the way IPv6
> allocation were made for "critical infrastructure". AFNIC has then
> strongly supported Andreas proposal from the beginning and hoped that
> the solution would come rapidly because AFNIC is still needing such a
> solution to start deploying anycast in IPv4 AND in IPv6 in a
> consistent way!

This reinforces the position that RIPE should not give
out address allocations to TLD operators to use for their
anycast deployments. There is nothing special about DENIC.

If AFNIC and DENIC form a consortium to operate anycast
deployments for TLD operators, then that is a different
question entirely. I think it would be right for RIPE to
allocate addresses to such a consortium just like we now
do with other network operators.

--Michael Dillon