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

On 24-mrt-05, at 12:53, Peter Koch wrote:

>> alternatives. Don't forget that DNS anycasting isn't an essential
>> technique, it's just an optimization. However, if the plus side ends 
>> up

> If an optimization at all, it's an essential one.

We're talking about TLDs here, not the root. There are very few TLDs 
that even use the full 13 or so addresses that are possible without 
using EDNS0. Country code TLDs have existed for 20 years without 
trouble without anycast, so I really don't see why this would be 
necessary now, especially as the shorter RTTs that are possible with 
anycasting are extremely unlikely to make a noticeable real-world 
difference.

>> at the TLD operator and the minus side at the internet users at large,
>> this optimization won't be very optimal.

> TLD and root servers are a prime example for an "at large" benefit,

I'll go along with you for the root part but arguments for the root 
don't automatically carry over to TLDs.

> Is there anything in the current proposal that makes it "too easy" to 
> get the
> address space? Any suggestions for rewording or clarification?

The fact that it exists makes it easy.

One thing that would help is forbid the use of more than one IPv6 
prefix for a nameserver (cluster) under the same administrative and/or 
technical management. I.e., if .nl and .fr both want to anycast and 
they both hire Anycast PLC to run anycast instances around the world, 
they don't both get a prefix, but have to share one.

Don't forget that changing addresses for a TLD server is a simple 
administrative procedure (= no new root.zone) so it's easy to change 
addresses when the situation changes.

And I think one special prefix per TLD is enough.