Fwd: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)

* Tobias Cremer <tcremer at cw.net> [2007-05-10 13:10]:
> On 10.05.2007 09:50, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
> > I'm more in favor for a "number of zones" limit.
> 
> I disagree here, as the number of zones
> 
> a) is again a number - but which one? How can we decide how many zones
> you need to serve. And what if someone has x-1 zones? He won't be
> eligible for an anycasting assignment, even if he serves e.g. 9999 zones.
>
> b) is generally no criteria for being eligible for an anycasting
> assignment in my opinion. If it would be, it would mean "I'm more
> important because I have more zones, and thus may do anycast".

Yes, you're right. The same problem exists with the 512 byte limit.
There are valid reasons for anycast without meeting these criteria.
(And in my opinion they are even more important then number of
zones/bytes).

Michael Dillon suggests to use physical locations as a criteria.
Perhaps we should go in that direction?

Something like: You're providing a service which will benefit from
anycast AND you have x¹ physical locations where you will deploy these
services (Regardless of who "owns" the location).

¹(x locations could be "multiple" or a number?)

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