[address-policy-wg] Policy Change Request - Allow address allocations for anycast DNS operation

>> I would suggest a slight re-phrase:
>
>> "Operators providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers
>> such that the total response size when including the list of
>> nameservers for the zone is close to the UDP packet
>> size limit may be assigned PI network prefixes for the purpose of
>> anycasting name servers, as described on RFC 3258. These shall be: a
>> /24 IPv4 prefix and/or a /32 IPv6 prefix."
>
>> Given that the issue is the will to anycast due to the  operational
>> impact of adding more servers to the list, not just the size of the NS
>> RRSET itself.
>
>I see your point and it's the same thing I had in mind when I wrote the
>policy down. I don't think that it makes sense to work to hard on an exact
>definition when someone classifies for an allocation.

  It depends on how tight we want to knit the mesh (and emphasise
  conservation et.al. :-)

> As well it is 
>impractical to say you have to cross the limits first (and prove that
>your clients are suffering from it) before you can get your allocation.

  Agreed.

>I thought that those who are attracted by the policy will have no problem
>justifying it and RIPE would have no problem to ask people returning the
>networks if they do not use them as stated in the policy. But maybe
>my thinking is too positive here.

  I guess everything which essentially gives you easy access to a PI /24
  (/32 for that matter in the long run) is going to attract interest, at
  least eventually.

  Thus here are my questions for double-checking my own mental picture and
  assumptions:

  - the applicant has to be an established LIR - correct?

  - as setting up a server and finding slaves, plus anycast in general is
    not really rocket science: is there any closer definiton of "Operators
    providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers..." -
    would my own domain (say - netcraft.at) qualify as well?

  - and trying to reclaim that address space would be pretty cumbersome
    for both parties, I guess, unless the zone (all zones on those
    servers?) go(es) away _completely_ ?!

  Cheers,
  Wilfried.