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

Hay,

Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:15:20PM +0100, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> 
>>==> 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.
> 
> 
> It's not that easy.  *If* they start "judging" requests, they also start
> asking lots of additional questions (to understand the background), and
> then people will again start complaining "the hostmasters are so 
> annoying with all these questions! why do I need to send in an IPv6
> network diagram, I just want addresses!"...
> 
> This is why I'm aiming for a very specific "checklist".  No doubts, no
> discussions.

Maybe, but that might be overregulating things once again.
I'd rather say, no nifty criteria at all then.

Or probably similar to the Experiemental Allocation/Assignment policy,
that people just have to show what they do with Anycast Services 
somewhere public, so everyone can see what kind of service it is or so.

Or just "networks ASSIGNED ANYCAST have to be used as anycast 
addresses", i.e. they need to be announced from more than one location,
similar to the ASN policy ("...you have to have at least two peers...").
The latter will prevent misuage in case people trying to get portable
(unicast) addresses by abusing an open anycast policy.

Still, why shouldn't I be able to announce my nets from multiple places
and start anycast services for whatever reason i personally think i
need to do this for?
I can do this with my old nets, i also can just fake some PI-request
for something different and use that than.
A restrictive policy doesn't help much to get things documented here.

The intention of the policy should be, that anycast services can be
documented properly in first place - if I understood the initial request
right. Since as we see out there in real life and some people noted 
during the discussion - you can _do_ anycast even without a new policy.
It's just about "legalizing" it and getting the ability to document it.

I don't see a reason, why this should be limited to certain "critical 
infrastructure" noone can agree upon what this should be in first place 
anyways.

(Note: i'm talking only about IPv4 here for the moment since things in
        IPv6 are a) different and b) not even settled yet when it comes
        to IPv6 routing issues)

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