[address-policy-wg] Re: RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:34:11AM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
> I think this has the same problem as "critical infrastructure" in that 
> you now need to define "benefits for the whole community". 

I agree.

> Second, with 
> the definition above, if I am an ISP that decides to anycast my 
> DNS-servers, do I get the "anycast space"? 

That's why there is a protocol limitation.  If you're an ISP and already
have 10 (!) distinct name servers in different PA blocks and different
countries, and want to increase your resiliency further, this might
be a viable approach.

On the other hand, I've never seen anything delegated to more than 
6 DNS servers - which can be done w/o anycast just fine.

But I agree: we need to decide whether we *want* to permit that, and
formulate the policy in accordance to that.

> To be honest, I think you 
> need to nail down what we are talking about. Maybe we will need a 
> "Anycasted RIPE NCC Service Region TLD DNS-server space".

"we" might need, indeed :)

[..]
> Now, if what we are trying to solve is anycasting for TLD 
> DNS-servers in the RIPE NCC Service region, why don't we just write 
> that? 

I would be fine with such a proposal.  

So it could look like this:

Criteria:
 - Anycast
 - technical requirements (UDP record full)
 - ccTLD or gTLD operator

Assignment:
 - /24 "status: ASSIGNED ANYCAST" out of well-known range
 - all anycast blocks (in RIPE land) come from the same range

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  57882  (57753)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299