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

Hay,

for starters: i must admit, that i didn't read all mails of this thread, 
because most sub-discussions are - IMHO - way off topic.
So apologies if i missed something important.

Gert Doering wrote:

[...]
>>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.

I don't really see why "we" want to restrict the usage of Address space
for Anycast applications to some specific things like "i have too many 
nameservers, need to convert to anycast or my zone explodes!!" or 
something like that.

My opinion is, that _if_ there's a distinct (IPv4)Anycast Policy, it 
should be rather open to new ideas.

(Note: i don't really see the need for such a policy anyways, everyone 
was happy without it up to now. But since i do favour correct 
documentation in the whois database, i still like the idea somehow.)

[...]
> 
>>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

Again, this probably prevents using IPv4 Address blocks for other 
anycast usage.
I mean, what if I come up with a cool idea why i want to use
anycast, probably i don't even request a new IPv4 block for that but
use one of "my" blocks i already have and want to document it, e.g.
with "ASSIGNED ANYCAST" - now i'm not allowed to do this? Will RIPE
have to take away my net because i illegally use it for Anycast?
What about if I use non-RIR assigned/allocated blocks (EARLY-REGISTRATION)?
Or just what about if someone comes up with a new requirement for
anycast on the list - do we have to discuss it another two months and
again change the policy then?

==> I'd prefer more open "Criteria". We have no real IPv4 shortage,
     i don't see why we need to restrict this that much once again.
     RIPE hostmasters should be able to recognize a "good reason", even
     if there's no keyword in it they can check against a certain policy.

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

Since i like good documentation, i like this - i.e. i support this :-)
Although - what about people using "old" Address space from a different
range for Anycast?


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