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

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> [..]
> 
>>Currently, the IPv4 Anycast policy seems to accept 99.6% wasted address
>>space as OK. I am suggesting that the policy should try to reduce that
>>waste, by offering a /24 to organizations which provide Anycast hosting
>>services. Since you can't legitimately offer such a service without
>>having some minimum number of data centre locations, then the policy
>>could specify a minimum number. And if you gain more than 250 or so
>>customers and need another /24 then that should be easy to get.
> 
> 
> This sounds VERY acceptable to me, and IMHO this should definitely be
> incorporated into this new policy. This is the real justification that
> can be very easily verified by RIPE NCC to see if the requester really
> has a need for this address space. It can then indeed also be applied
> for other services that benefit from an anycast construct.
> 
> Also, for the DB WG, should there maybe be a special way of notating
> anycast prefixes in the route/route6 object!?

Is the status: attribute the appropriate place or mechanism for this?

Anycasting is more like a special routing setup, imho, so (just from a
debugging point of view) the Routing Registry might be more appropriate?

> This way, when one does a
> whois it will pop up showing that the prefix is anycasted, and possibly
> from where, when documented. This allows for better debugging, otherwise
> you customer might be reporting "issues to reach X or Y", while it
> actually is going somewhere completely different for you. Of course
> traceroute is always a help there too, but how many customers know how
> to use that ;)
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen

Wilfried.