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

> 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.

bingo!

we seem to be pushing address space sales at the expense of
routing/conservation, with no real justification.  but folk
have been ignoring me on this for years; so i'll go back to
sleep now.

> Of course, people may still dream up configurations which
> would exceed the EDNS.0 DNS over UDP packet size limit.

and they will, just to be silly and grab a /24

randy