Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM)

[Jim Reid jim@localhost]

On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:21, Antoin Verschuren wrote:

> I think it should say:
>
> "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC"
I don't think it should say this either Antoin. :-( The NCC does not  
define the ENUM operators: its role in ENUM is strictly neutral.  
Strictly speaking, IAB chose the NCC as the ENUM Tier-0 registry and  
the National Administrations select their corresponding Tier-1 registry.
I suggest the following language/definition:

Critical Infrastructure Domain: a TLD listed in the IANA database  
(insert URL here), e164.arpa or any delegation of e164.arpa made  
according to the arrangements in place between RIPE NCC, IAB and ITU-T  
(insert url here).
Then in the modified 6.9 for RIPE424 say something like

The organisation(s) applicable under this policy are operators of  
Critical Infrastructure Domains.
I'm uneasy about explicitly listing e164.arpa since this means the NCC  
would in principle be able to allocate resources to itself. This might  
not be wise. Another concern here is ICANN's plans for lots of new  
TLDs. Though I expect we'll be out of IPv4 space before those TLDs  
come on-line.
And here's a wider question: do these allocations of /24s for  
infrastructure anycasting go to the registry operator or should they  
be linked to the domain name? ie If the registry for .nl or  
1.3.e163.arpa moves from SIDN, do any anycast allocations for these  
domains stay with SIDN or would they go back to the NCC or get  
transferred to the new registry operator?