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

["B C" brettlists@localhost]

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. <

> wrote:

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.

I think that the term Critical Infrastructure speaks for itself really doesn't it, without scalable and stable DNS deployments at the TLD level the businesses you refer to would be at risk because of their parents potential instability.

I guess it depends on what you define as Critical Infrastructure, I am just talking about ccTLD/gTLD and ENUM registries/entity getting allocations for Anycasting their TLD DNS servers, by definition these are not in competition with businesses who are not in the TLD arena and therefore I don't believe there is a 'fairness' issue.

 

This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago).

I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years and why you consider the fairness has changed?


 

This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin!

Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet their allocation policies.
 
Brett

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

 -----------------------------------------