* Jim Reid:
On 22 Apr 2009, at 08:27, Florian Weimer wrote:
Should critical DNS infrastructure include DLV zones for public use?
No. Absolutely not. DLV is not critical to the operation of the Internet.
And ENUM is? Which part of the Internet depends on it?
The DNS servers for TLDs, and to a lesser extent, the Tier-1 ENUM delegations are critical. If they went away, everyone would immediately notice that.
Could you name a ENUM delegation which is critical in this sense? (This is exclusively about e164.arpa and its children, right?)
Another point: anyone can set themselves up a DLV provider. So if arbitrary DLV operators were able to get anycast allocations, this would be a good way of depleting the remaining IPv4 space. At least there's a finite number of TLD and Tier-1 ENUM delegations which are underpinned by "official" registries and procedures for obtaining/ managing them. This is not the case for DLV providers (if I can use that vague term).
This is certainly the best argument, although it's rather discriminating. (Although the situation with TLDs will likely evolve into more general availability.)
Oh and what happens when the next flavour-of-the-month DNSSEC validation hack comes along? Should the policy be modified to accommodate that too??
Oh, come on, DLV is less of a hack than ENUM. At least it uses DNS for storing DNS-related data, and it's a rather good match conceptually (incremental dialing anyone?).
BTW I am also uncomfortable with attempts to shore up DLV or to make it more permanent.
I can understand that, but isn't this something beyond addressing policy? It's a bit like denying .BY an anycast prefix because you don't like the political situation over there. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99