[address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Wed Jun 9 13:27:15 CEST 2004
>> I would suggest a slight re-phrase: > >> "Operators providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers >> such that the total response size when including the list of >> nameservers for the zone is close to the UDP packet >> size limit may be assigned PI network prefixes for the purpose of >> anycasting name servers, as described on RFC 3258. These shall be: a >> /24 IPv4 prefix and/or a /32 IPv6 prefix." > >> Given that the issue is the will to anycast due to the operational >> impact of adding more servers to the list, not just the size of the NS >> RRSET itself. > >I see your point and it's the same thing I had in mind when I wrote the >policy down. I don't think that it makes sense to work to hard on an exact >definition when someone classifies for an allocation. It depends on how tight we want to knit the mesh (and emphasise conservation et.al. :-) > As well it is >impractical to say you have to cross the limits first (and prove that >your clients are suffering from it) before you can get your allocation. Agreed. >I thought that those who are attracted by the policy will have no problem >justifying it and RIPE would have no problem to ask people returning the >networks if they do not use them as stated in the policy. But maybe >my thinking is too positive here. I guess everything which essentially gives you easy access to a PI /24 (/32 for that matter in the long run) is going to attract interest, at least eventually. Thus here are my questions for double-checking my own mental picture and assumptions: - the applicant has to be an established LIR - correct? - as setting up a server and finding slaves, plus anycast in general is not really rocket science: is there any closer definiton of "Operators providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers..." - would my own domain (say - netcraft.at) qualify as well? - and trying to reclaim that address space would be pretty cumbersome for both parties, I guess, unless the zone (all zones on those servers?) go(es) away _completely_ ?! Cheers, Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]