[address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction

At 18:15 2008.11.17.t Cá', B C wrote:


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

One /24 prefix for TLD's DNS should be more than enough anyway. If you are 
hosting ccTLD or gTLD it shouldn't automatically qualify you for "Critical 
infrastructure". A small country with 200 ccTLD domains registered is not 
more critical than some business hosting 120,000 .com/.net domains (a DNS 
service not ccTLD or gTLD). Maybe a high reliability and uptime for this 
company is more critical to be in business than a small ccTLD with just 2 
million of DNS queries. However, the small ccTLD get's /24 allocated 
without problems in Ripe region, the other company does NOT.

Well I do not care much anyway since we have moved clients to Arin IP space 
and meet all the requirements there and we are happy. I just wanted to 
comment that /24 prefix for anycast should be more open to businesses that 
meet some other criteria not just ccTLD or gTLD hosting.

>
>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?

Faster pipes, CPU power, better firewalls.... (cheaper HW)...


Greg


>
>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 
>><<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>mailto:ondrej.sury at 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/b29c7eee/attachment.html>