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

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> 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 

it might appear so since they are already anycasting. And with IPv6 it's
no longer really 13. And by the way, that's exactly covered in the
proposed policy, so the applicant has to provide some reasoning.

> using EDNS0. Country code TLDs have existed for 20 years without 
> trouble without anycast, so I really don't see why this would be 

Well, I've been told that some things have changed during those 20
years, including IPv6 deployment, query volume increase, DoS attacks,
user expectation to name a few.

> necessary now, especially as the shorter RTTs that are possible with 
> anycasting are extremely unlikely to make a noticeable real-world 
> difference.

They might not for a single user but they definitely do -- even more so
for the users "at large".

> >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.

Nothing automatic here, but just one example: most people during the day hit
more SLDs in a single TLD than they hit different TLDs.

> 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.

That raises the question whether the prefix is per TLD or per DNS operator.
Thanks for your input - any comments anyone else?

> And I think one special prefix per TLD is enough.

Assumed the former this has interesting implications.

-Peter