Hi, On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:34:11AM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I think this has the same problem as "critical infrastructure" in that you now need to define "benefits for the whole community".
I agree.
Second, with the definition above, if I am an ISP that decides to anycast my DNS-servers, do I get the "anycast space"?
That's why there is a protocol limitation. If you're an ISP and already have 10 (!) distinct name servers in different PA blocks and different countries, and want to increase your resiliency further, this might be a viable approach. On the other hand, I've never seen anything delegated to more than 6 DNS servers - which can be done w/o anycast just fine. But I agree: we need to decide whether we *want* to permit that, and formulate the policy in accordance to that.
To be honest, I think you need to nail down what we are talking about. Maybe we will need a "Anycasted RIPE NCC Service Region TLD DNS-server space".
"we" might need, indeed :) [..]
Now, if what we are trying to solve is anycasting for TLD DNS-servers in the RIPE NCC Service region, why don't we just write that?
I would be fine with such a proposal. So it could look like this: Criteria: - Anycast - technical requirements (UDP record full) - ccTLD or gTLD operator Assignment: - /24 "status: ASSIGNED ANYCAST" out of well-known range - all anycast blocks (in RIPE land) come from the same range Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57882 (57753) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299