[address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg L.
bgp2 at linuxadmin.org
Mon Nov 17 15:55:22 CET 2008
Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: >Ondrej, > in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast > assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy > proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as > the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we > are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that > we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal > here in the next couple of weeks. > >Regards > >Brett Carr > >Nominet UK > > >On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý ><<mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz>ondrej.sury at nic.cz> wrote: >Hello everybody, > >I would like to post unformal proposal before writing >official policy modification proposal (and/or having >discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). > >We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified >to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to >gTLD/ccTLD. > >First reason behind this is that one PI is not really >enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers >and make our TLD service more reliable. > >Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS >servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records >for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low >even with DNSSEC. > >And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this >synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: >we may also extend the list of requestors to: >Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. >Which I think is reasonable list. > >1. ><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 >2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1 > >If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to >write official policy change proposal. > >Ondrej >-- > Ondøej Surý > technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer > ----------------------------------------- > CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry > Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic > mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz <http://nic.cz/>http://nic.cz/ > <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury at nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 > mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 > ----------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20081117/68d518c3/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]