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

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 11:18:29AM +0100, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
> RIPE should be able to allocate a single /24 IPv4 and a /32 IPv6 address 
> block for the operation of anycast DNS servers if:
> - the operator serves a TLD zone
> -  the number of (planned?) nameservers would lead to a truncation of the 
> authority/additional section in a DNS delegation response containing the 
> NS RRset in [draft-ietf-dnsop-respsize-00.txt 2.9]

I would support that.

Yes, I know that it's a very special case, and it could be done by 
a "swamp" (or a random PI) /24 just fine.  But I'm very much in favour of
having official ways to do things that need doing - and I'm convinced
that this is a good thing to do.

As for the impact on the routing table: this new policy would not make
more or less impact than just announcing a random /24, but it would
allow for better documentation what it's all about.

As far as "other" anycast deployments go: there have been some voices
on the list that "we must not do a policy that's too narrow minded" - yes,
that's true, but we don't want a "permit all" policy either (well, we
*could* do that, but there does not seem to be consensus to do that).

*If* other people show up, and say "we want to do this-and-that, and
have a specific need that cannot be done in the current framework", we
can always adapt the then-existent policies.


(This is speaking as myself, and as APWG co-chair).


Andreas: I would appreciate if you could give a short presentation
(5 mins?) in Amsterdam, repeating the reasoning behind this proposal,
to stir some discussion.  

Then we can have a final call for consensus some time after the meeting.

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