Sorry meant to send this to the list!<br><br>--Heather<br><br>---------- Forwarded message ----------<br><span class="gmail_quote">From: <b class="gmail_sendername">heather skanks</b> <<a href="mailto:heather.skanks@gmail.com">
heather.skanks@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: May 9, 2007 8:48 AM<br>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-02 New Policy Proposal (Change in IP Assignments for Anycasting DNS Policy)<br>To: Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">
gert@space.net</a>><br><br></span>Why the assumptaion that anycast requires PI space in the first place?<br><br>I can understand why it might be preferred that DNS operators have PI space, regardless of whether they anycast. They don't need a lot of space to run the service, and without a policy to allow them to get PI, they would be dependent on space from a provider. But, I think their need for PI has more to do with them being critical infrastructure, rather than the fact that they anycast. The fact that they don't need a lot of space to run the service and wouldn't otherwise qualify for PI, means that there needs to be a special policy for them.
<br>
<br><br>That said, the change from<br>"If the name server set of a ccTLD or a gTLD "<br>to:<span class="q"><br>"If the name server set of an organisation running DNS"<br></span>The rest of the policy goes on to make the requirement that they have 8 or more IP addresses for the services (pre anycasting)
<br>and demonstration of the need to do anycasting. <br><br>The new text seems to change the policy to hinge more on the need to anycast as justification for this space, rather than the service being critical infrastructure.
<br><br> I don't know of anything inherent in anycast technology that would require provider independent space. <br><span class="sg">
<br>--Heather</span><div><span class="e" id="q_11270e1faa8992d9_4"><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/25/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gert Doering</b> <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
gert@space.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br><br>On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 05:00:52PM +0200, Jørgen Hovland wrote:<br>> Why does this proposal say it's for DNS only?<br><br>The protocol is changing an existing policy document, which has "DNS only"
<br>in it. It's not creating new policy.<br><br>> I guess other anycast protocols aren't important enough?<br><br>What other anycast protocols are in widespread use today?<br><br>Gert Doering<br> -- NetMaster
<br>--<br>Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403<br><br>SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
<br>D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br>Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br><br></blockquote></div><br>
</span></div>