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

  Hi Pekka!

  The next paragraph is where I strongly start to disagree:

> (2) this proposal takes no stance on who can request a block of
>addresses like this for his DNS servers?

  Correct, and this is the way it should be! If someone wants to start
  deploying a particular _technology_ for her service, then there should
  be NO discussion about size, "importance", level in a hierarchy and
  similar things.

>  People could add up servers
>and addresses for them just for the purposes of getting nice PI
>prefix(es)  for their DNS servers.

  Just like they can buy/rent cheap end systems today to be configured on
  a particular network to get IPv4 addresses ;-)

>  Wouldn't it be nice, never having
>to renumber your DNS server addresses in different registries etc.

  Sure :-) And?

>This is short-sighted.  We should restrict this approach to specific
>class of DNS servers, like ccTLDs or the like -- if that's the class 
>of DNS servers where we'd intend do something like this.

  This would get us (i.e. the NCC) into deep trouble: without intending to
  pick at a particular Zone - just to make a point - why would eg. VT. or
  MD. be eligible, but AC.UK. (or AC.AT. for that matter) or google.com or
  3.4.E164.ARPA. would not?!

>-- 
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

  We just made this mistake too often already (looking at a particular
  application, at a particular transmission technology[1], and the like,
  and hard-wiring that into resource distribution policy).

  The only aspect that I would accept here is characteristics or rather
  limitations of the DNS _technology_ and _protocols_ (and maybe others),
  but NOT what type of service it is used for!

  Wilfried.

[1] like 24/8 and DSL being treated as "dial-up" when in reality (for a
    certain period in time) the _business model_ would have been
    interesting to look at, and not the technology or application...