[address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction

Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 
/24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities 
that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments.

  I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific 
group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still 
compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment 
for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD 
and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies 
prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin!

At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote:
>Ondrej,
>      in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast 
> assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy 
> proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as 
> the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we 
> are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that 
> we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal 
> here in the next couple of weeks.
>
>Regards
>
>Brett Carr
>
>Nominet UK
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý 
><<mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz>ondrej.sury at nic.cz> wrote:
>Hello everybody,
>
>I would like to post unformal proposal before writing
>official policy modification proposal (and/or having
>discussion tomorrow on Open Hour).
>
>We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified
>to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to
>gTLD/ccTLD.
>
>First reason behind this is that one PI is not really
>enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers
>and make our TLD service more reliable.
>
>Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS
>servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records
>for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low
>even with DNSSEC.
>
>And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this
>synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]).  Note:
>we may also extend the list of requestors to:
>Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs.
>Which I think is reasonable list.
>
>1. 
><http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2
>2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1
>
>If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to
>write official policy change proposal.
>
>Ondrej
>--
>  Ondøej Surý
>  technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer
>  -----------------------------------------
>  CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o.  --  .cz domain registry
>  Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic
>  mailto:ondrej.sury at nic.cz  <http://nic.cz/>http://nic.cz/
>  <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury at nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110
>  mob:+420.739013699     fax:+420.222745112
>  -----------------------------------------
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20081117/68d518c3/attachment.html>