[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Dear Pekka,

I have not seen you on the last RIPE meeting when we had a short
update on my policy proposal for anycasted TLD nameservers which is 
referenced
later as the 4th option for the hungarian nameservers.

> I would be opposed to option 4.
>
> >> 4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable?
> >> Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region?
> >> 
> >> - I think this is the cleanest solution.
> >> 
> >> Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists?
> >> 
> >> I saw a proposal: 
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html
> >> 
> >> In my opinion this can solve the problem....

I have not seen any discussions that think it is a bad idea to assign 
several 
network resources to TLD administrators which will enable them to operate 
their
nameservers according to RFC3258.

When we have reviewed the discussions we felt that your objection against 
the proposal was because of the size of the assignment. I'm planning to 
submit
revised proposal with a reduced prefix length which better fits with other
assignment policies. If you are opposing to the new proposal I would be 
glad
to know as soon as it is submitted.

If you are suggesting that .hu should start using IPv6 addresses from
carriers to start deploying V6 with some of their nameservers and renumber
them later as the V6 infrastructure matures I would agree. Looking at the
query rates on V6 interfaces the impact of loosing one nameserver in the 
V6
cloud is not as crucial as in the V4 world at the moment. However this
might change faster than sone people think at the moment making V6 
anycasting
of TLD nameservers a top priority for their administrators.

Regards
Andreas Baess
-- 
DENIC e.G.                 Phone :+49 69 27235 120
Wiesenhuettenplatz 26      Fax   :+49 69 27235 235
D-60329 Frankfurt          Mail  : baess at denic.de