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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment 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 ]
heather skanks
heather.skanks at gmail.com
Wed May 9 15:11:55 CEST 2007
Sorry meant to send this to the list! --Heather ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: heather skanks <heather.skanks at gmail.com> Date: May 9, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy) To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net> Why the assumptaion that anycast requires PI space in the first place? I can understand why it might be preferred that DNS operators have PI space, regardless of whether they anycast. They don't need a lot of space to run the service, and without a policy to allow them to get PI, they would be dependent on space from a provider. But, I think their need for PI has more to do with them being critical infrastructure, rather than the fact that they anycast. The fact that they don't need a lot of space to run the service and wouldn't otherwise qualify for PI, means that there needs to be a special policy for them. That said, the change from "If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD " to: "If the name server set of an organisation running DNS" The rest of the policy goes on to make the requirement that they have 8 or more IP addresses for the services (pre anycasting) and demonstration of the need to do anycasting. The new text seems to change the policy to hinge more on the need to anycast as justification for this space, rather than the service being critical infrastructure. I don't know of anything inherent in anycast technology that would require provider independent space. --Heather On 4/25/07, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote: > > Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only? > > The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only" > > in it. It's not creating new policy. > > > I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough? > > What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today? > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. > Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070509/69c644f7/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-02 New Draft Document Published (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment 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 ]