[address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Anycast for DLV zones
Remco van Mook remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
Wed Apr 22 13:51:44 CEST 2009
What Jim said. In addition, the way I see it is that DLV is a temporary measure until the root gets signed and all the world is happily using DNSsec. As this is only a very temporary situation, why make this part of permanent policy? If DLV needs anycast, file a proposal. Better yet - the RIRs in my experience have no problems doing temporary resource allocations for experiments, given a justification. Why not try that? Or will DLV be another artefact that will be around forever? Best, Remco On 22-04-09 13:42, "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > On 22 Apr 2009, at 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Jim Reid: >> >>> On 22 Apr 2009, at 08:27, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> >>>> Should critical DNS infrastructure include DLV zones for public use? >>> >>> No. Absolutely not. DLV is not critical to the operation of the >>> Internet. >> >> And ENUM is? > > Well it definitely has more people/applications depending on it than > DLV. And unlike DLV, ENUM has paying customers and businesses which > depend on it. Even in the public e164.arpa tree. > >> Which part of the Internet depends on it? > > See above. Pretty much anything doing lookups in e164.arpa: Asterisk > servers, various other SIP services, VoIP providers, smartphones, etc. > ENUM may have a low usage. But unlike DLV, ENUM is not just for > consenting adults: everything and anything can do an ENUM lookup > straight out of the box. This is not the case for DLV because DNSSEC- > aware validators -- a miniscule percentage of the world's resolving > servers -- have to be specially configured, DLV policies need to be > defined, key mangament issues have to be worked out, etc, etc. > >>> The DNS servers for TLDs, and to a lesser extent, the Tier-1 ENUM >>> delegations are critical. If they went away, everyone would >>> immediately notice that. >> >> Could you name a ENUM delegation which is critical in this sense? > > Well I know there are paying customers and commercial services > dependent on ENUM in Austria, Romania and the UK. I expect this is > also true other countries: I can't be bothered to look. FYI the > Austrian regulator has set aside a block of their number space for > ENUM-only telephony. > >> Oh, come on, DLV is less of a hack than ENUM. At least it uses DNS >> for storing DNS-related data, and it's a rather good match >> conceptually (incremental dialing anyone?). > > This is not the forum to debate whether ENUM or DLV is a better use of > the DNS. Please take this argument somewhere else. > >>> BTW I am also uncomfortable with attempts to shore up DLV or to make >>> it more permanent. >> >> I can understand that, but isn't this something beyond addressing >> policy? It's a bit like denying .BY an anycast prefix because you >> don't like the political situation over there. > > It's not like that at all. The policy can be summarised as "important > DNS infrastructure can get an anycast allocation from the NCC". No > more, no less. You're quibbling about what the definition of important > is. So far the view on this list is that DLV zones do not deserve to > be called important. IMO valid reasons have been presented to explain > why DLV doesn't deserve one of these anycast allocations. You may well > disgaree with that view. But you've yet to present any justification > why DLV zones should be treated in the same way as a TLD or ENUM > Tier-1 delegation. Saying "I think ENUM sucks" does not make that case. > > If you think DLV deserves these anycast allocations, present the > justifcation and convince this list. > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.