About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction

  • From: "Greg L." bgp2@localhost
  • Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:55:22 +0200

Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments.

 I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin!

At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote:
Ondrej,
     in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal here in the next couple of weeks.

Regards

Brett Carr

Nominet UK


On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý <
> wrote:
Hello everybody,

I would like to post unformal proposal before writing
official policy modification proposal (and/or having
discussion tomorrow on Open Hour).

We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified
to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to
gTLD/ccTLD.

First reason behind this is that one PI is not really
enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers
and make our TLD service more reliable.

Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS
servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records
for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low
even with DNSSEC.

And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this
synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]).  Note:
we may also extend the list of requestors to:
Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs.
Which I think is reasonable list.

1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2
2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1

If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to
write official policy change proposal.

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



 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community