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

Hi,

let's be a bit difficult, shall we? ;-)

> There has been some confusion on whether this is "PI".  It is not,
> it's "anycast space", and should be tagged as such in the database,
> to help people recognizing these special blocks immediately as such.
> The usual rules apply: "if the criteria for allocations do no longer
> apply, the address block should be returned" (even if that is
> unlikely to happen very often in practice).

What makes this different from clever wordplay?  From a routing
perspective the difference is pretty small, if it is there at all.

> ------------ snip ------------
> "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 

Hm, it's not "the UDP packet size limit", it is "the packet size limit
for DNS over UDP without the application of EDNS.0".  I may not have
followed things too closely, but it makes me sort of wonder why a push
towards EDNS.0 is not being advocated instead of polluting the routing
space to compensate for people who have not yet upgraded their
software...  Of course, people may still dream up configurations which
would exceed the EDNS.0 DNS over UDP packet size limit.

> be assigned dedicated network prefixes for the sole purpose of 
> anycasting name servers, as described on RFC 3258. These shall be: 
> a /24 IPv4 prefix and/or a /32 IPv6 prefix per anycast server set,
> which will usually only be one per operator.  The prefixes shall be 
> tagged as 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE database and should be 
> returned to the RIPE NCC if not in use for anycast DNS any longer."
> ------------ snip ------------

Regards,

- Håvard