About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Policy Proposals
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
green dot Current Policy Proposals
green dot Archived Policy Proposals
green dot Subscribe to the Policy-Announce List
green dot Policy Proposal Template
green dot Policy Development Process Info (PDF)
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

RIPE Policy Proposal 2008-05

Number:
2008-05
Policy Proposal Name:

Anycasting Tier 0/1 ENUM

Authors:
spacer
Proposal Version:
1.0
Submission Date:
4 September 2008
Current Phase :
Discussion - Open for Discussion
Phase ends/ended:
12 November 2008
Latest Status:
Awaiting Decision from Proposer
Suggested WG for Discussion and Publication:
Address policy
Proposal Type:
Modify
Policy Term:
Permanent
Policy Documents to be Affected:

IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-424)
IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (ripe-421)

Summary of Proposal:

The proposal is to allow Tier 0/1 ENUM operators to receive IPv4 and IPv6 anycasting assignments.

Policy text

a. Current (if modify):

From RIPE-424

6.9 Anycasting TLD Nameservers

If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD without anycasting technology applied would not pass the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data' the TLD administrator may receive a single dedicated /24 network prefix for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258.

The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the TLD, upon a request submitted via an existing LIR and will be registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer.

b. New:

6.9 Anycasting TLD and Tier 0/1 ENUM Nameservers

If the name server set of a ccTLD, gTLD or a Tier 0/1 ENUM without anycasting technology applied would not pass the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data' the TLD or the ENUM administrator may receive a single dedicated /24 network prefix for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258.

The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the TLD or ENUM operator, upon a request submitted via an existing LIR and will be registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer.

a. Current (if modify):

From RIPE-421

7. Assignments for Anycasting TLD Nameservers

If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD without anycasting technology applied would not pass the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data' the TLD or ENUM administrator may receive a single dedicated /48 network prefix for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258.

The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the TLD, upon a request submitted via an existing LIR and will be registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer.

b. New

7. Assignments for Anycasting TLD Nameservers

If the name server set of a ccTLD, gTLD or a Tier 0/1 ENUM without anycasting technology applied would not pass the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data' the TLD or the ENUM administrator may receive a single dedicated /48 network prefix for the sole purpose of anycasting name servers, as described in RFC 3258.

The prefix will be assigned by the RIPE NCC directly to the TLD or the ENUM operator, upon a request submitted via an existing LIR and will be registered with a status of 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE Database and must be returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer.

Rationale:

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

Tier 0/1 ENUM operators have similar addressing needs in anycasting as ccTLDs or gTLDs as part of Internet DNS operators. Therefore the anycasting policies should be extended to cover them too.

b. Arguments opposing the proposal

Some may argue this will cause some waste of address space and additional entries in routing tables but the number of ENUM operators are limited so such impact should be very limited.



 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community