[ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Andreas Bäß/Denic baess at denic.de
Tue Nov 1 16:53:37 CET 2005
Dear Pekka, I have not seen you on the last RIPE meeting when we had a short update on my policy proposal for anycasted TLD nameservers which is referenced later as the 4th option for the hungarian nameservers. > I would be opposed to option 4. > > >> 4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? > >> Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region? > >> > >> - I think this is the cleanest solution. > >> > >> Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists? > >> > >> I saw a proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html > >> > >> In my opinion this can solve the problem.... I have not seen any discussions that think it is a bad idea to assign several network resources to TLD administrators which will enable them to operate their nameservers according to RFC3258. When we have reviewed the discussions we felt that your objection against the proposal was because of the size of the assignment. I'm planning to submit revised proposal with a reduced prefix length which better fits with other assignment policies. If you are opposing to the new proposal I would be glad to know as soon as it is submitted. If you are suggesting that .hu should start using IPv6 addresses from carriers to start deploying V6 with some of their nameservers and renumber them later as the V6 infrastructure matures I would agree. Looking at the query rates on V6 interfaces the impact of loosing one nameserver in the V6 cloud is not as crucial as in the V4 world at the moment. However this might change faster than sone people think at the moment making V6 anycasting of TLD nameservers a top priority for their administrators. Regards Andreas Baess -- DENIC e.G. Phone :+49 69 27235 120 Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 Fax :+49 69 27235 235 D-60329 Frankfurt Mail : baess at denic.de
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]