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

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 04:56:47PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
> let's be a bit difficult, shall we? ;-)

Welcome to the club :-)

> > 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.

On the router itself, there is hardly any difference.

For the person configuring the router's filters, it might make a 
difference whether something is tagged as "this comes from a larger
PA block" (so you don't necessarily need to carry it, there should be 
an aggregate in the table) and "this is something special".

> > ------------ 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".  

Of course.  Sorry for being unprecise.  ("For not correcting *this* part of
the initially-also-unprecise wording ;-) ").

> 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.

I leave *this* up to the DNS people - Andreas and Joao - to answer.

In this discussion, I'm trying to wear the "WG Co-Chair" hat only - not
actively advocating anything, just trying to clarify things, based on
the proposal from DENIC (Andreas).  

So if people tell me that "95% of all DNS clients are already ENDS.0 
capable, junk this proposal" (and have good background data for this, 
like "root DNS logs" or so) - fine with me, less work for me and the 
RIPE NCC.

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