RE: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

["Koepp, Karsten" <]

Hi all,

I also followed the discussion, not stepping in here because
of no background in TLD operations. Getting a bit frustrated
as I see NO movement here.

Unlike others, I do see dns being _critical_ to the infrastructure.
No other protocol is that much subject of political discussions.
As an operator being dependent on TLD operations I want to see
a stable operations of the dns tree. Consequently I support giving
the TLD operators the tools they need to make it a stable service.

I have read an _expressed need_ of the tld community for anycast
where I have not seen any constructive proposal against. Hence I have
to ACCEPT that large TLDs need it. It brings us no step further towards
a stable dns chain if we deny this.

What is the impact onto my network if I accept to grant special
resources to this need? I can see hardly any besides at most 200 
prefixes polluting the DFZ.

I can question whether the anycast allocations should be /32 or
/48 or something else. It doesn't make a difference in terms of resources 
stressing my network provided I have a finite number of objects here.
Operationally I believe /32 assignments are more stable, so I tend
handing out /32 to TLD operators. Current policy does not allow to
allocate routeable blocks to TLDs, so we have to change the policy.

Before you start flaming I do not regard this opening the flooding gates,
as I don't see the flood. TLD operators are being defined as critical 
infrastructure. It can be decided case by case to allow further 
infrastructure - by the RIPE members, but I haven't seen such case yet.
Let it be xyz.com, have they ever claimed a need for themselves?


regards Karsten


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohsen Souissi [
	    
	    
]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Florian Weimer
> Cc: address-policy-wg@localhost ipv6-wg@localhost
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro 
> allocation or
> something else?
> 
> 
> Florian & all,
> 
>  On 16 Nov, Florian Weimer wrote:
> [...]
>  | It depends on the PI criteria.  If slots in the global 
> routing tables
>  | are kept in short supply *and* you get at most one if you aren't an
>  | ISP *and* you need to do IPv6 anycast, you might have a problem
>  | because you need two globally visible prefixes (one for your
>  | production network, one for anycast).
>  | 
>  | But I think you are right that it makes sense to resolve 
> the PI first,
>  | either negatively or positively.
> 
> ==> This is just amazing! I have been follwing this topic for more
> than two years and I have the feeling that we are making again and
> again the history! I remember that when the IPv6 "PI" issue was first
> raised in the IPv6/LIR wgs ("LIR" was the old name for "AP" at that
> time), the answer was "PI is out of scope of this wg". Then came the
> first draft proposel of Andreas in the AP wg asking for a /32 for
> ccTLDs wishing to deploy anycast. At that time, the wg said "let's not
> talk about "PI", which is still out of scope of this wg. Let's rather
> talk about specific needs of TLDs wishing to do anycast and see what
> we can do for them in termes of (micro-)allocation."
> 
> Now, I'm surprised that we are going back to the original issue and
> asking to first solve the PI problem...
> 
> If that's to be done and while we ar at it, we can see again how RIPE
> is the only RIR not considering TLD networks as "critical
> infrastructure" while an appropriate policy has been already
> implemented in all other existing RIRs for a long while (please
> revisit the comparative matrix of RIR policies at
> http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html and
> see how RIPE is lagging behind in this matter. Some of this
> mailing-list member would say: "that was our choice!"). Isn't it a
> European speciality to discuss over again and again issues without
> coming to any solution?  Some people on RIPE mailing-lists are now
> used to coming after a consensus is almost reached and try to break
> everything just for the sake of building CLEAN solutions...
> 
> (cc)TLD need an allocation (whether it is a /32 or whatever "routable
> prefix") because they need to do anycast, full stop. To recall only a
> few of the arguments for deploying anycast for a TLD, I would say:
> Redundance & Resilience against DDoS attacks, better global time
> response, a greater flexibility in adding and removing name servers
> without notifying IANA!
> 
> Btw, I'd like to remind some of this mailing-list readers that the
> request of DENIC is not isolated since AFNIC asked even before
> Adndreas first draft for a constency between all RIRs in the way IPv6
> allocation were made for "critical infrastructure". AFNIC has then
> strongly supported Andreas proposal from the beginning and hoped that
> the solution would come rapidly because AFNIC is still needing such a
> solution to start deploying anycast in IPv4 AND in IPv6 in a
> consistent way!
> 
> I still hope this debate will lead to a concrete solution within the
> coming 3 years!
> 
> Good luck :-)
> 
> Mohsen.
> 
>