[ncc-services-wg] DNS Related Policy and Procedure Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] DNS Related Policy and Procedure Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Fwd: RIPE 46 - Minutes of Ripe NCC Services WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at baycix.de
Thu Jan 22 02:47:02 CET 2004
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 * = ========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] DNS Related Policy and Procedure Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Fwd: RIPE 46 - Minutes of Ripe NCC Services WG
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]