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

Hi,

let me clarify a few things:

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 12:19:32PM +0200, Joao Damas wrote:
[..]
> Good up to here.
> 
> >.  This is meant as kind of
> >guidance - "deploy one set, and if that's well understood and
> >you want to deploy another set, feel free to come back".
> 
> the "come back" part spoils it. Some people already understand this 
> pretty well, no need for a several step ballet.

Maybe the wording wasn't too clear here.  I don't want to imply 
"you MUST deploy one anycast set first, and then wait 3 months, and
then come back for the second anycast set" (and it's not in the 
proposal text either).  This is just the way I had envisioned it 
to happen "in the general case".

[..]
> >Along that lines, there has been some confusion about redundancy.  An
> >important clarification is that it's not expected to put *all* 
> >nameservers
> >into the (single) anycast prefix, but have "unicast" servers and one
> >(or "few") anycast sets.  So if the anycast prefix is unavailable from
> >some networks, clients will fall back to one of the unicast servers.
> 
> This could be the subject for a BCP sort of document by the DNS wg, but 
> it has no place in an IP allocation policy.

Which is exactly why it's not in the proposed text.  It's just there
to explain "background thoughts" - and I agree that a DNS wg BCP document
would be a good place to write it down.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  60210  (58081)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299