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/
[address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-08 will go to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ondřej Surý
ondrej.sury at nic.cz
Mon Nov 17 17:35:48 CET 2008
Brett, I already sent my proposals to modify ipv4 and ipv6 policies to wg chairs while in Dubai. But incorporating ENUM should be as easy as listing ENUM Tier-1 registry to list of what is 'Critical Infrastructure'. Ondrej. 2008/11/17 B C <brettlists at gmail.com>: > 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, Ondřej 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 >> -- >> Ondřej Surý >> technický ředitel/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/ >> sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 >> mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 >> ----------------------------------------- > > -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/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/ sip:ondrej.sury at nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-08 will go to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]