Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

Hi,

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:09:26AM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> Why should address policy be so tightly tied to the technical details of
> the DNS protocol and its implementation?

Just for the records: because this policy is an exeption to the normal
rules - and an exception made for a very specific community (DNS TLD Ops)
that made a good point for it.

If the normal rules permitted anybody to get a /24 IPv4 PI and an IPv6 PI
block (which might happen over time, we can't know yet), then we need no
exception to the rule.

As of now, neither is easily available in RIPE land, and thus a special
case policy was made.  (As for all the arguments going back and forth
regarding the *existing* policy, please don't rehash them here - just go
to the mailing list archives.  Everything has been said before).


So there's actually just two thing that we want to decide *now*:

 - do we want to change the rules for this specific policy to apply to 
   other entities as well?

 - if yes, what shall the new rules be?


The rules should always aim to

 - solve the problem (so it would be helpful if organizations that are *not*
   a TLD operator but would want to do an externally-visible anycast setup
   to speak up, say what they are doing, and why it can't be done using
   the standard way to build nameserver redundancy "just put up a good 
   number of them")

 - be easy to evaluate by the RIPE NCC


Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279