Antwort: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

Hay,

Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
> Gert,
> 
> you have not been right when assuming that DENIC is only looking for an 
> IPv4
> solution. All of our nameservers should have full and native V4 _and_ V6
> connectivity which includes the anycast servers as well.
[...]


well, we finally should descide, if this is just about xxTLD nameervers,
or about a general Anycast Policy. As I said before, i see huge 
differences between those two possibilites.

For IPv6, there is a TLD Policy available. If we're only talking about
improving connectivity options for xxTLD Nameservers, we indeed should 
just add some exeption to the current IPv4 Assignment policy, or 
transform the current http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html
to include ccTLDs and IPv4.

In the meantime, after some discussions on other channels, i'm even of
the opinion, this would be the better idea.

- There seems to be no need for a special policy regarding IP Blocks
   used for anycast. Some status value ASSIGNED ANYCAST would be nice,
   but i guess, we need no policy

- This whole issue is rather about Nameservers. xxTLD operators can't
   justify something like a /24 in IPv4 or /32 in IPv6 just for one
   nameserver glue record.
   Most other people thinking about deploying anycast services most
   likely have other needs or even other means of acquiring address space
   which is routable globally

==> Just update the TLD-rootnameserver Policy, easy, main problem 
solved, and probably even a global policy then, not only a RIPE solution.

...my 0.02EUR for now

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================