This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastian Wiesinger
sw+ripe-apwg at internetx.de
Wed May 9 12:00:06 CEST 2007
* Tobias Cremer <tcremer at cw.net> [2007-05-04 11:28]: > > During the discussion of the original anycast policy proposal it was carefully > > avoided -- after some looping debate -- to encode explicit DNS parameters > > into said proposal. That's the whole point of referring to IANA's delegation > > procedure. Now, I understand that IANA's procedures aren't applicable to > > non-TLDs, but at the same time it isn't obvious where the number "eight" > > originates from. > > Why is the IANA procedure not applicable to non-TLDs? It is clear that > the IANA document only refers to TLD nameservers, but one can apply the > requirements to other DNS setups as well. And in my opinion this is a > good procedure, as the IANA policy in regards to the UDP packet size is > a reasonably clear and well-defined requirement for having the need of > an anycasting setup. Hello, the company I work for would greatly appreciate this policy change. We're hosting a huge amount of zones. We would benefit from using anycast for our setup, but not so much in regard to the 512 byte limit of the referral response. We see the need for an anycast setup for other reasons. Most important to us: The mitigation of damage/effects from (D)DoS or disaster at / shutdown of a site. In this case the anycast setup would prevent bigger problems because other sites would handle the DNS requests. Besides that, anycast would improve our setup with load sharing between anycast locations and the possibility to deploy locations in other countries to improve response time. In this regard I would appreciate alternatives to the 8 NS rule in the policy. I must admit that I'm not quite sure what the alternatives should be, but I'm looking forward to comments/suggestions. Regards, Sebastian -- InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr. 6 93047 Regensburg Germany Tel. +49 941 59559-480 Fax +49 941 59579-051 Geschäftsführer/CEO: Thomas Mörz Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142 nic-hdl : SW1421-RIPE GPG-Key : 0x97F5A1D8 (0x8431335F97F5A1D8) GPG-Fingerprint : 6181 B041 3554 0B6F 4EF3 1B12 8431 335F 97F5 A1D8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]