<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">The problem I have with Alan’s suggestion for allowing subsequent requests is that at least in the IPv4 case, this could easily be used to artificially consume massive amounts of resources with very little investment in infrastructure or deployment.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 28, 2014, at 3:56 AM, McTim <<a href="mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com" class="">dogwallah@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">sure, I am all for future proofing as APB suggests.<br class=""><br class=""></div>I don't think that there is groounds for confusion, but I would support the change that Alan suggests in the interests of clarity.<br class=""><br class="">rgds,<br class=""><br class=""></div>McTim<br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:26 AM, Alan Barrett <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:apb@cequrux.com" target="_blank" class="">apb@cequrux.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem<br class="">
<br class="">
This proposal allows the use of:<br class="">
<br class="">
a. One (1) /24 of IPv4 for anycast services from a PA allocation of<br class="">
an LIR or direct end-user assignment.<br class="">
b. One /48 of IPv6 for anycast services from an IPv6 LIR allocation<br class="">
or direct end-user assignment.<br class="">
c. An AS Number for anycast purposes.<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class=""></span>
Clause 2 appears to require the applicant to use all three of the IPv4,<br class="">
IPv6, and ASN. However, under clause 3, it uses "and/or" to allow the<br class="">
applicant to choose any subset of those three items. I think this<br class="">
should be clarified, possibly by the use of words like this in the first<br class="">
sentence of clause 2:<br class="">
<br class="">
2. This proposal allows the use of any one or more of the following:<br class="">
<br class="">
It's also not clear whether the restriction to "one" IPv4 /24, IPv6<br class="">
/48, or ASN, means only one forever, or one per application (with the<br class="">
freedom to apply for another one later). I'd prefer to allow the use of<br class="">
multiple such subnets or ASNs, if the applicant is providing multiple<br class="">
anycast services and has adequate justification for not placing them all<br class="">
in the same subnet or ASN.<br class="">
<br class="">
I'd also like this proposal to be usable for any kind of anycast, even<br class="">
those not invented yet.<br class="">
<br class="">
--apb (Alan Barrett)<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br class="">
______________________________<u class=""></u>_________________<br class="">
rpd mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/<u class=""></u>mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd</a><br class="">
</div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><br clear="all" class=""><br class=""></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">rpd mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>