[ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Pekka Savola pekkas at netcore.fi
Tue Nov 8 02:43:59 CET 2005
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote: >>>> 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. Yes. Let me clarify my objections: 1) special policy for ccTLDs (if they do not anycast) is not IMHO needed as assignments from (some of the) transits should be enough; 2) special policy for any arbitrary service, if anycast, does not seem justified because it's too open-ended; 3) ccTLD combined with requirement to anycast it appears to be suitably well justified operationally and technically. In addition, a) we have enough address space that allocating a (v6) /32 is not waste. b) I'm strongly opposed to creating any special micro-allocation blocks which is just waiting for getting the worms out hence a). So, I'd say that if the policy proposal is 3) with a (v6) /32, I shouldn't have a problem with it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]