<html> <body> 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. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! At 18:09 2008.11.17.t C�', you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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, Ond�ej Sur� <<a href="mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz">ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a>> wrote: <dl> <dd>Hello everybody, <dd>I would like to post unformal proposal before writing <dd>official policy modification proposal (and/or having <dd>discussion tomorrow on Open Hour). <dd>We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified <dd>to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to <dd>gTLD/ccTLD. <dd>First reason behind this is that one PI is not really <dd>enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers <dd>and make our TLD service more reliable. <dd>Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS <dd>servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records <dd>for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low <dd>even with DNSSEC. <dd>And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this <dd>synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: <dd>we may also extend the list of requestors to: <dd>Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. <dd>Which I think is reasonable list. <dd>1. <a href="http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2">http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2</a> <dd>2. <a href="http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1" eudora="autourl">http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1</a> <dd>If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to <dd>write official policy change proposal. <dd>Ondrej <dd>-- <dd> Ond�ej Sur� <dd> technick� �editel/Chief Technical Officer <dd> ----------------------------------------- <dd> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry <dd> Americk� 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic <dd> <a href="mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz" eudora="autourl">mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a> <a href="http://nic.cz/">http://nic.cz/</a> <dd> <a href="mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz">sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a> tel:+420.222745110 <dd> mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 <dd> ----------------------------------------- </dl> </blockquote></body> </html>