[address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Anycast for DLV zones

* Jim Reid:

> On 22 Apr 2009, at 08:27, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Should critical DNS infrastructure include DLV zones for public use?
>
> No. Absolutely not. DLV is not critical to the operation of the
> Internet.

And ENUM is?  Which part of the Internet depends on it?

> The DNS servers for TLDs, and to a lesser extent, the Tier-1 ENUM
> delegations are critical. If they went away, everyone would
> immediately notice that.

Could you name a ENUM delegation which is critical in this sense?
(This is exclusively about e164.arpa and its children, right?)

> Another point: anyone can set themselves up a DLV provider. So if
> arbitrary DLV operators were able to get anycast allocations, this
> would be a good way of depleting the remaining IPv4 space. At least
> there's a finite number of TLD and Tier-1 ENUM delegations which are
> underpinned by "official" registries and procedures for obtaining/
> managing them. This is not the case for DLV providers (if I can use
> that vague term).

This is certainly the best argument, although it's rather
discriminating.  (Although the situation with TLDs will likely evolve
into more general availability.)

> Oh and what happens when the next flavour-of-the-month DNSSEC
> validation hack comes along? Should the policy be modified to
> accommodate that too??

Oh, come on, DLV is less of a hack than ENUM.  At least it uses DNS
for storing DNS-related data, and it's a rather good match
conceptually (incremental dialing anyone?).

> BTW I am also uncomfortable with attempts to shore up DLV or to make
> it more permanent.

I can understand that, but isn't this something beyond addressing
policy?  It's a bit like denying .BY an anycast prefix because you
don't like the political situation over there.

-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99