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

On 22 Apr 2009, at 12:05, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * 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?

Well it definitely has more people/applications depending on it than  
DLV. And unlike DLV, ENUM has paying customers and businesses which  
depend on it. Even in the public e164.arpa tree.

> Which part of the Internet depends on it?

See above. Pretty much anything doing lookups in e164.arpa: Asterisk  
servers, various other SIP services, VoIP providers, smartphones, etc.  
ENUM may have a low usage. But unlike DLV, ENUM is not just for  
consenting adults: everything and anything can do an ENUM lookup  
straight out of the box. This is not the case for DLV because DNSSEC- 
aware validators -- a miniscule percentage of the world's resolving  
servers -- have to be specially configured, DLV policies need to be  
defined, key mangament issues have to be worked out, etc, etc.

>> 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?

Well I know there are paying customers and commercial services  
dependent on ENUM in Austria, Romania and the UK. I expect this is  
also true other countries: I can't be bothered to look. FYI the  
Austrian regulator has set aside a block of their number space for  
ENUM-only telephony.

> 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?).

This is not the forum to debate whether ENUM or DLV is a better use of  
the DNS. Please take this argument somewhere else.

>> 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.

It's not like that at all. The policy can be summarised as "important  
DNS infrastructure can get an anycast allocation from the NCC". No  
more, no less. You're quibbling about what the definition of important  
is. So far the view on this list is that DLV zones do not deserve to  
be called important. IMO valid reasons have been presented to explain  
why DLV doesn't deserve one of these anycast allocations. You may well  
disgaree with that view. But you've yet to present any justification  
why DLV zones should be treated in the same way as a TLD or ENUM  
Tier-1 delegation. Saying "I think ENUM sucks" does not make that case.

If you think DLV deserves these anycast allocations, present the  
justifcation and convince this list.