Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Thu May 10 15:13:06 CEST 2007
Jeroen Massar wrote: > michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > [..] > >>Currently, the IPv4 Anycast policy seems to accept 99.6% wasted address >>space as OK. I am suggesting that the policy should try to reduce that >>waste, by offering a /24 to organizations which provide Anycast hosting >>services. Since you can't legitimately offer such a service without >>having some minimum number of data centre locations, then the policy >>could specify a minimum number. And if you gain more than 250 or so >>customers and need another /24 then that should be easy to get. > > > This sounds VERY acceptable to me, and IMHO this should definitely be > incorporated into this new policy. This is the real justification that > can be very easily verified by RIPE NCC to see if the requester really > has a need for this address space. It can then indeed also be applied > for other services that benefit from an anycast construct. > > Also, for the DB WG, should there maybe be a special way of notating > anycast prefixes in the route/route6 object!? Is the status: attribute the appropriate place or mechanism for this? Anycasting is more like a special routing setup, imho, so (just from a debugging point of view) the Routing Registry might be more appropriate? > This way, when one does a > whois it will pop up showing that the prefix is anycasted, and possibly > from where, when documented. This allows for better debugging, otherwise > you customer might be reporting "issues to reach X or Y", while it > actually is going somewhere completely different for you. Of course > traceroute is always a help there too, but how many customers know how > to use that ;) > > Greets, > Jeroen Wilfried.