[address-policy-wg] Re: allocations to critical infrastructure

Michael and all,

  Michael, this argument/debate has been hashed before on other
forums, as you know because you were a participant.  I see that
your arguments favoring including "Anycast" in a "Best practices"
document as part of a routing policy have not changed.  However
such arguments do not appear to yet again carry sufficient justification
to be wise or even "Doable" in a practical sense.  Hence leaving again
such a policy as you espouse to be considered close to reasonable...


Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:

> >They are, but they are not even using the amount of redundancy available
> >by DNS today (read: "as many name servers as fit into a minimum sized
> >UDP packet full of glue").  So there is hardly an argument for doing
> >anycast.
>
> I think that it is dangerous for a policy to force people to
> follow an evolutionary path when they implement technology. If it
> is considered "best practice" for a DNS infrastructure to use
> anycast then we should not penalize them because they jump there
> from a more primitive state.
>
> >The route servers use TCP, which will not work over anycast (in the
> >general case - consider load balancing, every other packet going to
> >a different destination machine.  No problem for UDP, big problem
> >for TCP)
>
> It is also dangerous for a policy to punish people for
> evolving their technology. If it is considered "best practice"
> to use anycast to publish critical infrastructure databases then
> people should be able to change their services to enable them
> to use UDP and anycast.
>
> There are many ways in which a service could be adapted to anycast,
> even a session-based service. There are also non-anycast ways to solve
> this type of problem, such as peer-2-peer overlay networks, that could
> still benefit from having a well-known address range as a rendezvous
> point.
>
> I really don't think that the policy needs to be a close fit for
> a certain technical implementation. Instead it needs to express the
> basic principle which is a non-technical principle. Then it can
> provide a checklist which deal with technical questions. In the future
> if the technical implementations change, it will be easier to add or
> change checklist items if there is a solid principle underlying the
> policy.
>
> --Michael Dillon

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801