Hay, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
Gert,
you have not been right when assuming that DENIC is only looking for an IPv4 solution. All of our nameservers should have full and native V4 _and_ V6 connectivity which includes the anycast servers as well. [...]
well, we finally should descide, if this is just about xxTLD nameervers, or about a general Anycast Policy. As I said before, i see huge differences between those two possibilites. For IPv6, there is a TLD Policy available. If we're only talking about improving connectivity options for xxTLD Nameservers, we indeed should just add some exeption to the current IPv4 Assignment policy, or transform the current http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-rootservers.html to include ccTLDs and IPv4. In the meantime, after some discussions on other channels, i'm even of the opinion, this would be the better idea. - There seems to be no need for a special policy regarding IP Blocks used for anycast. Some status value ASSIGNED ANYCAST would be nice, but i guess, we need no policy - This whole issue is rather about Nameservers. xxTLD operators can't justify something like a /24 in IPv4 or /32 in IPv6 just for one nameserver glue record. Most other people thinking about deploying anycast services most likely have other needs or even other means of acquiring address space which is routable globally ==> Just update the TLD-rootnameserver Policy, easy, main problem solved, and probably even a global policy then, not only a RIPE solution. ...my 0.02EUR for now -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================