<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bgp2@linuxadmin.org">bgp2@linuxadmin.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
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.<br><br>
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.</div></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br>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. <br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div> This is not fair (it
was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). </div></blockquote><div><br>I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years and why you consider the fairness has changed?<br><br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div>This is why
many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to
Arin!<div class="Ih2E3d"></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet their allocation policies.<br> <br>Brett<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div class="Ih2E3d"><br><br>
At 18:09 2008.11.17.t C�', you wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="Ih2E3d">Ondrej,<br>
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.<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
Brett Carr<br><br>
Nominet UK<br><br>
<br></div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ond�ej Sur�
<<a href="mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz" target="_blank">ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div></div><dl>
<dd>Hello everybody,<br><br>
</dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">I would like to post unformal proposal before writing<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">official policy modification proposal (and/or having<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">discussion tomorrow on Open Hour).<br><br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to<br>
</div></div></dd><dd>gTLD/ccTLD.<br><br>
</dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">First reason behind this is that one PI is not really<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">and make our TLD service more reliable.<br><br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low<br>
</div></div></dd><dd>even with DNSSEC.<br><br>
</dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note:<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">we may also extend the list of requestors to:<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs.<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">Which I think is reasonable list.<br><br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">1.
<a href="http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2" target="_blank">http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2</a><br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">2.
<a href="http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1" target="_blank">http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1</a><br><br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to<br>
</div></div></dd><dd><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">write official policy change proposal.<br><br>
</div></div></dd><dd>Ondrej<br>
</dd><dd>--<br>
</dd><dd> Ond�ej Sur�<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<dd> technick� �editel/Chief Technical Officer<br>
</dd><dd> -----------------------------------------<br>
</dd><dd> CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry<br>
</dd><dd> Americk� 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic<br>
</dd><dd> <a href="mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz" target="_blank">mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a>
<a href="http://nic.cz/" target="_blank">http://nic.cz/</a><br>
</dd><dd> <a href="mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz" target="_blank">sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz</a>
tel:+420.222745110<br>
</dd><dd> mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112<br>
</dd><dd> -----------------------------------------<br><br>
</dd></div></dd></dl><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br>