[address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. <bgp2 at linuxadmin.org> wrote:

>  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.
>

I think that the term Critical Infrastructure speaks for itself really
doesn't it, without scalable and stable DNS deployments at the TLD level the
businesses you refer to would be at risk because of their parents potential
instability.

I guess it depends on what you define as Critical Infrastructure, I am just
talking about ccTLD/gTLD and ENUM registries/entity getting allocations for
Anycasting their TLD DNS servers, by definition these are not in competition
with businesses who are not in the TLD arena and therefore I don't believe
there is a 'fairness' issue.



> This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+
> years ago).
>

I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years and
why you consider the fairness has changed?




> This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to
> Arin!
>

Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet
their allocation policies.

Brett


>
> 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 <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
> 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 <ondrej.sury at nic.cz>  http://nic.cz/
>  sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz <sip%3Aondrej.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/e04f6ed3/attachment.html>