Hi, On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote: <snip>
Technical justification for this policy
<snip>
Cons:
1. Accepting a number of IPv4/24 and IPv6/32 allocations for critical network infrastructures does not align with the traditional address conservation efforts. With anycasting it is very likely that only a few addresses from the entire assignment would be used.
Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6. IPv6 usage growth will also transform conservation of IPv4 in a non-issue. How many ccTLDs/gTLDs exist? Isnt this number easy to identify?
2. RIPE document 233 dated from 24th May 2002 says: "Although it is undesirable to give special status to any IP (IPv4 or IPv6) address block, it was agreed by the community that the particular need defined in this document is the only justifiable exception to that general principle."
It pretty much justifies it. <snip> I can also second gert's advice: focus on "anycast" to sharpen up the policies... Hope this can be done in 2004. Regards, ./Carlos -------------- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (131586/456), naming (millions) and... people!"