[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root

gert at space.net (Gert Doering) wrote:

> There is no special case policy for (unicast) ccTLD name servers, for
> major search engines, big software vendor download sites, etc. -> find
> an upstream provider, get an IPv6 address block, and enter that in the
> relevant DNS zones.

I'm not talking unicast, I'm talking of not having a chance to get
an assignment for ccTLD DNS servers. And yes, they would be anycast,
for packet size reasons (even if that isn't the issue here; count the
Verisign special assignments).

Our home v6 network is a PA /48 (you of all should know) which I
cannot properly multihome. Fortunately, that's not a problem, even
if some people are filtering it. The real problem is DNS deployment
in v6. v4 has 11 (14 by June) of our servers, spread world-wide; I'd
like to do the same with v6 servers, but I simply can't.

Every f***ing registry on the planet has the special assignment policy
(with very strict rules, mind you), except for the one they always
send me back to ("sorry, not our business, you're in the RIPE region").


> Of course the underlying question returns to "how to do IPv6 multihoming
> for A Special End Site".

I know, and I am getting sick of the process not getting one step
further. I don't know where the problem really is, but the only way
to get one or a couple /48s for anycasting seems to open business
in the USA. Or Zaire. Or New Zealand. So one of the registries that
long have this kind of policy consider me their business.

I don't know why the RIPE community doesn't even publish the papers
that are being circulated and have been for over a year now. Is
everybody busy waiting for the IETF v6-multihoming group to come
to a conclusion?

Elmar.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---