[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2005-03-04, at 20.38, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

> Dear all,
> Please find enclosed a policy proposal. As per my previous message I 
> will "beta-test" the new PDP on this proposal.
> The current proposal has been discussed previously and has now been 
> re-formulated after that discussion.
> My proposal is to enter this proposal into the Discussion Phase with a 
> time line of 2 weeks  ending on April 4th.

I am behind on email, but better late than never....

> 9.Summary of proposal
>
> To enable ccTLD and gTLD nameserver operators to provide their DNS 
> service
> using shared unicast technology, RIPE NCC is able to assign one IPv4 
> and
> IPv6 prefix per operator that is not likely to be filtered by common
> practise for anycast-operation of their DNS services.

This part troubles me. This is a significant change from current policy 
on guaranteed routability, and also quite a deviation from the critical 
infrastructure policies of the other RIRs. I would like to remove the 
"likely not to be filtered" from the above, or add that at no times can 
the RIPE NCC guarantee routability or wide reachability and acceptance 
of the assigned prefixes.

> "If the nameserverset of a TLD without anycasting technology applied 
> would
> not pass the IANA Administrative Procedure for Nameserver Delegation 
> and
> Glue Data (http://www.iana.org/procedures/delegation-data.html) may 
> receive
> dedicated network prefixes for the sole purpose of anycasting name 
> servers,
> as described in RFC 3258. These shall be: one /24 IPv4 prefix and/or 
> one
> /32 IPv6 prefix per operator. The prefixes shall be tagged as 
> 'ASSIGNED ANYCAST' in the RIPE database and MUST be returned to the 
> RIPE NCC
> if not in use for anycast DNS any longer."

I don't see why RIPE need to assign a /32 when the other regions are 
/48s? I would also like to add that these assignments should be made 
out of a single block.

Also, to follow the "have you considered private address space" (or 
whatever the exact formulation is ) question in the PI application, I 
would like to require the applicant to consider using an existing 
anycasting service. YEs, I understand that that is a business decision, 
but so is accepting these prefixes by the rest of the world.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQkE4h6arNKXTPFCVEQK5PwCgy2upHuiK5Odk+FyGV54UY6UXCzQAnjMA
itq8rIX9z3ov1GjO4LGEc1Tn
=4ibU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----