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

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:10:24AM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> > |   (like "put up 100 servers at various ISP networks, using PA 
> > |space from those ISPs")
> > 
> > Is that to be interpreted as a fixed number ?
> > That would make it more difficult to apply this in a smaller country 
like
> > Norway (where do I find ISP % 95...) that in for instance germany ?
> 
> You're not supposed to have all servers in the same country...!
> 
> (But anyway: I agree that it's difficult to specify the criteria. 

As far as I have followed the discussion there seems to be a favour to
grant TLD operators permission to get resources to operate an anycast
DNS.

>From my point of view it does not make sense to add any additional 
threshold
like number of instances or worldwide distribution as it is the decision
of the registry where it starts the rollout and how fast and how many
servers he would like to have totally to fullfill the registries SLAs for
their query load.

> So I'd appreciate if someone else would actually come up with specific
> suggestions, instead of only discussing why the stuff we already have
> isn't going to work).

So my suggestion is to allow the allocation of a single /24 IPv4 and a
/32 IPv6 address block to TLD operators who want to operate an anycast
DNS service for their TLD. If they don't provide this service within
a year or stop the service after starting it, they have to return
the allocations. 

As this allocation will be multihomed be nature with it's own routing
policy they also qualify for a distinct AS number to define this
routing policy. When the service terminates the reouting policy does no
longer exist and naturally they have to return this resource as well.

Andreas
-- 
DENIC eG
Wiesenhüttenplatz 26
D-60329 Frankfurt