<html> <body> At 18:15 2008.11.17.t Cá', B C wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. <<a href="mailto:bgp2@linuxadmin.org">bgp2@linuxadmin.org</a>> wrote: <dl> <dd>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. <dd> 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. </dl> 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. </blockquote> 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. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <dl> <dd>This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). </dl> I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years and why you consider the fairness has changed? </blockquote> Faster pipes, CPU power, better firewalls.... (cheaper HW)... Greg <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <dl> <dd>This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! </dl> Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet their allocation policies. Brett <dl> <dd>At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <dd>Ondrej, <dd> 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. <dd>Regards <dd>Brett Carr <dd>Nominet UK <dd>On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondřej Surý <<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> Ondřej Surý <dd> technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer <dd> ----------------------------------------- <dd> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry <dd> Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic <dd> <a href="mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz">mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a> <a href="http://nic.cz/" eudora="autourl">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> </dl></blockquote></body> </html>