Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

[Ondřej Surý <ondrej.sury@localhost]

Sebastian Wiesinger píše v St 09. 05. 2007 v 12:00 +0200:
> We're hosting a huge amount of zones. We would benefit from using
> anycast for our setup, but not so much in regard to the 512 byte limit
> of the referral response. We see the need for an anycast setup for
> other reasons.

That's very good point.  We don't have problem with 8 IP addresses since
we are (will be shortly) running IPv6 on all our DNS nodes.  We don't
even have a problem to create 512 payload, since we are already almost
at the limit and we plan to have more nodes.

But our reasons for having anycasted DNS lies within stability and
resiliency and not within "not able to fit in 512 bytes".

I would rather have 4 anycasted nodes then to have 1 anycast and 7
unicast (or 2/6 setup).

On the other hand I thought that this Anycasting DNS policy was made to
cover "critical infrastructure of Internet".  If we loosen this policy
then anybody can create such DNS setup to grow bigger then 8 IP
addresses and 512 and receive anycast IPv4/IPv6 address.  I would be
extremely careful to make those rules less strict (wearing my ccTLD hat
now :-).

Ondrej.
-- 
 Ondřej Surý
 technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer
 -----------------------------------------
 CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.  --  .cz domain registry
 Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
 
	    
	    
  http://nic.cz/
 sip:ondrej.sury@localhost tel:+420.222745110
 mob:+420.739013699     fax:+420.222745112
 -----------------------------------------