* michael.dillon@bt.com <michael.dillon@bt.com> [2007-05-10 11:09]:
I agree with Jeroen. We're having waaay more than 10.000 zones which (currently) don't go over the 512 byte limit.
On the contrary, if I wanted to get PI, what would stop me from taking one zone, expand it's dns records up to 512+ byte and request the space?
Why should address policy be so tightly tied to the technical details of the DNS protocol and its implementation?
Are you saying that IPv4 Anycast is only justified if the application is DNS hosting and the number of separate zones (presumably you count SOA records) goes over a certain limit?
No other application is justified?
No, I don't say that. I'm not happy with these "numerical" requirements. But I'm *more* happy with the SOA count (in our case) then the 512 byte limit.
Only the organization hosting the DNS is eligible, i.e. a data centre operator who wants to provide hosting services is not eligible?
Every DNS hoster with over x zones gets their own /24 even though you could aggregate over 200 such organizations into one /24 if they shared data centre infrastructure?
It seems to me that this approach to IPv4 Anycast prefixes only reinforces an existing monopoly and blocks organizations who might want to take a fresh approach to DNS hosting or other types of application hosting.
You definitely have a point here. I'm hoping that someone comes up with a better plan for the requirement(s), I'm still thinking about one. It's a lot of space to give away, and there has to be some sort of limitation. Sebastian -- InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr. 6 93047 Regensburg Germany Tel. +49 941 59559-480 Fax +49 941 59579-051 Geschäftsführer/CEO: Thomas Mörz Amtsgericht Regensburg, HRB 7142 nic-hdl : SW1421-RIPE GPG-Key : 0x97F5A1D8 (0x8431335F97F5A1D8) GPG-Fingerprint : 6181 B041 3554 0B6F 4EF3 1B12 8431 335F 97F5 A1D8