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

[Jørgen Hovland jorgen@localhost]

I thought we learned from the 200 customer rule :-)

j

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost [
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
Sent: 9. mai 2007 15:36
To: Heather Skanks
Subject: Re: Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

[ can people avoid using HTML please.... eyes hurt etc ]

Heather Skanks wrote:
[..]

> That said, the change from
> "If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD "
> to:
> "If the name server set of an organisation running DNS"
> The rest of the policy goes on to make the requirement that they have 8
> or more IP addresses for the services (pre anycasting)
> and demonstration of the need to do anycasting.
> 
> The new text seems to change the policy to hinge more on the need to
> anycast as justification for this space, rather than the service being
> critical infrastructure.

As without that little rule I could simply ask for a nice chunk of /24
PI space for my "DNS servers" which are used for my single domain.
(Gert I need a /24 PI for my unfix.org dns servers!!!! kidding :)

That said, as this policy is specific for organizations running, why not
simply have a "minimum amount of DNS 2nd and 1st level zones served".

Giving the criteria "runs one or more TLD's" justification to apply to
this policy. And "runs more than a 10.000 1st level domains"
justification to apply to it too. (10k chosen arbitrarily, I'll let the
folks here figure that number out :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

(in the above TLD = ".com", 1st level domain == "example.com", 2nd level
domain would be "marketing.example.com", of course for TLD's like .uk, a
1st level domain is "example.co.uk")