[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Florian & all,

 On 16 Nov, Florian Weimer wrote:
[...]
 | It depends on the PI criteria.  If slots in the global routing tables
 | are kept in short supply *and* you get at most one if you aren't an
 | ISP *and* you need to do IPv6 anycast, you might have a problem
 | because you need two globally visible prefixes (one for your
 | production network, one for anycast).
 | 
 | But I think you are right that it makes sense to resolve the PI first,
 | either negatively or positively.

==> This is just amazing! I have been follwing this topic for more
than two years and I have the feeling that we are making again and
again the history! I remember that when the IPv6 "PI" issue was first
raised in the IPv6/LIR wgs ("LIR" was the old name for "AP" at that
time), the answer was "PI is out of scope of this wg". Then came the
first draft proposel of Andreas in the AP wg asking for a /32 for
ccTLDs wishing to deploy anycast. At that time, the wg said "let's not
talk about "PI", which is still out of scope of this wg. Let's rather
talk about specific needs of TLDs wishing to do anycast and see what
we can do for them in termes of (micro-)allocation."

Now, I'm surprised that we are going back to the original issue and
asking to first solve the PI problem...

If that's to be done and while we ar at it, we can see again how RIPE
is the only RIR not considering TLD networks as "critical
infrastructure" while an appropriate policy has been already
implemented in all other existing RIRs for a long while (please
revisit the comparative matrix of RIR policies at
http://www.ripe.net/info/resource-admin/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html and
see how RIPE is lagging behind in this matter. Some of this
mailing-list member would say: "that was our choice!"). Isn't it a
European speciality to discuss over again and again issues without
coming to any solution?  Some people on RIPE mailing-lists are now
used to coming after a consensus is almost reached and try to break
everything just for the sake of building CLEAN solutions...

(cc)TLD need an allocation (whether it is a /32 or whatever "routable
prefix") because they need to do anycast, full stop. To recall only a
few of the arguments for deploying anycast for a TLD, I would say:
Redundance & Resilience against DDoS attacks, better global time
response, a greater flexibility in adding and removing name servers
without notifying IANA!

Btw, I'd like to remind some of this mailing-list readers that the
request of DENIC is not isolated since AFNIC asked even before
Adndreas first draft for a constency between all RIRs in the way IPv6
allocation were made for "critical infrastructure". AFNIC has then
strongly supported Andreas proposal from the beginning and hoped that
the solution would come rapidly because AFNIC is still needing such a
solution to start deploying anycast in IPv4 AND in IPv6 in a
consistent way!

I still hope this debate will lead to a concrete solution within the
coming 3 years!

Good luck :-)

Mohsen.