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

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
>>>> 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.

Yes.  Let me clarify my objections:
  1) special policy for ccTLDs (if they do not anycast) is not
     IMHO needed as assignments from (some of the) transits should be
     enough;
  2) special policy for any arbitrary service, if anycast, does not
     seem justified because it's too open-ended;
  3) ccTLD combined with requirement to anycast it appears to be
     suitably well justified operationally and technically.

In addition,
  a) we have enough address space that allocating a (v6) /32 is not
     waste.
  b) I'm strongly opposed to creating any special micro-allocation
     blocks which is just waiting for getting the worms out hence a).

So, I'd say that if the policy proposal is 3) with a (v6) /32, I 
shouldn't have a problem with it.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings