[dns-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] DNS Related Policy and Procedure Proposals

Hay,

[I didn't remove ncc-services-wg and db-wg lists since it's also a 
policy and db-issue]

Olaf Kolkman wrote:

[...]
> The reverse delegation policy has been revised, relaxing the terms
> under which reverse delegation will be serviced and providing the
> framework to implement the authorisation mechanism described
> above. 
> 
> The draft "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6
> Address Space in the RIPE NCC Service Region" can be found at:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/reverse-draft-200401.html
> 
> We would like to invite your comments on this. Please discuss these
> proposals on the DNS Working Group mailing list.
[...]

AFAIR there was no objection to this proposal as long as it comes to 
relaxing the policy itself.
I think we could implement the new draft ASAP.

It's short and easy and was updated to IPv6 - all we need.

The best part in my eyes is, that with the new policy and the new 
authorisation system (mnt-domains ect.), every address space holder can 
again request/update their rDNS delegations on their own (given the 
correct db authorisation) - as long as they know what they do.
(At least I think that's intentionally, since all the parts relating to 
only LIRs can hand in requests have been removed :-) )


And a personal sidenote:

I always kinda liked the current policy, allowing reverse delegation
on a /24 block only if there's at least one valid assignment in it.
Even though one usually shouldn't route a net without a valid 
assignment, i merged several LIRs throughout the last years, and I 
_always_ discovered some routed but not assigned networks.
In almost all cases it was hard to get the customer to hand in a correct
request for nets he's already been using for a while.
The best was to tell the customer, they can't get rDNS until they have a 
  valid Assignment and point to the policy - that often helped, unless 
they didn't care about rDNS at all.
Though, this is rather a social problem of unwilling customers and lazy 
LIRs. So I do support the relaxed policy.
Just saying that in my case the current policy rather helped some times 
than causing problems due to the restrictions. But i see the advantages 
of the new draft in general.

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