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

["B C" brettlists@localhost]

Jim,

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jim Reid jim@localhost wrote:
> 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).
>

When we were ediiting this document we had something very similar to
this on the table but it was decided having the explicit url's in the
document was a bad thing because if/when they changed it would break
the policy. We figured the hostmasters at the NCC would know where to
find the relevant definitive list and therefore it didn't need to be
explicitly reffered to with a direct url in the document.

> 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.
>

Well the intention of the policy is to allow Tier0 and Tier1 ENUM
operators to receive the allocations so by definition yes this does
mean the NCC can make an allocation to itself, but is this really a
bad thing as long as there is a reaonable hard limit (in this case 4
/24's) after all there are other areas where the NCC has allocated
address space to itself and I don't believe this has caused a problem.

> 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?
>

The intention of the policy is that they are allocated to the national
operator of ENUM, so for example in the UK, UKEC would be given the
allocations for ENUM who would then (hopefully) allow Nominet to use
those allocations while they were the registry/dns operator, If/when
UKEC decide to move the registry/dns operator to another entity they
can then ask Nominet to stop announcing the prefixes so the new
registry/dns operator can use them. If this isn't clear in the wording
I would welcome an edit.

Thanks

Brett Carr

Nominet