Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure
meets this criteria but I would argue that part of Google's service are the ads which are not offered freely, i.e. they cost money.
Google is free for most users...
Google is a business. If they want fault tolerance then they can buy it from Akamai or else build their own global infrastructure. If Google disappears, we can get similar service from many of their competitors. They aren't part of the infrastructure of the Internet.
exist. But if DENIC ceases to exist, it is 100% certain that ICANN would find some other organization to continue offering .de nameservice.
What makes you so sure that DNS and/or ICANN will survive?
LDAP is a well-proven robust and scalable directory services technology that is deployed at large organizations world-wide. But even though LDAP can do everything that DNS can do, there is no movement at all to replace DNS with LDAP and very few organizations run their DNS on top of backend LDAP servers. So DNS will survive for a long time. But if DNS would be replaced by LDAP, then I think DENIC would provide LDAP hosting for the .DE domain. And if DENIC does not survive, then ICANN would find someone else to provide LDAP services for .DE. But if ICANN does not survive, then its powers of allocating top level domains will pass to another organization, and this organization will make sure that there is somebody to host .DE. --Michael Dillon
Google is a business. If they want fault tolerance then they can
Ah, and VeriSign, or VRS, isn't? Or those DNS providers for ORG, INFO, LA, AG, ...?
buy it from Akamai or else build their own global infrastructure. If Google disappears, we can get similar service from many of their competitors. They aren't part of the infrastructure of the Internet.
But part of the economically critical infrastructure. And it's not the RIR's job to decide whether they better buy the service or provide it themselves. Sorry, this part of the discussion is heading absolutely nowhere. -Peter
This discussion is *not* about address policy, it really is about ** routing policy! ** The goal is to get prefixes propagated. They could live in any odd part of the address space! Routing policy is made by ISPs. (period) In order to provide hints to ISPs making such policy I have previolusly proposed a *registry* for "special" prefixes with some general categories like: - root server - TLD server - second level name server - internet search engine - other important prefix (see remarks section ;-) - .... Such a registry could be provided by the RIRs and used by the ISPs when defining and implementing their routing policy. The art here is to design the categories and to decide which ones can be policed. It is easy to determine and to check regularly if a prefix contains name servers for instance. Other categories should be "self-declaration". ISPs can then decide if and how to use such a registry. Is this something that provides added value to ISPs? Is it something that is useful for those using such prefixes? Daniel PS: If getting any address space at all is a problem for these applications, this needs to be addressed. Maybe it is already addressed by adjusting the "initial" usage requirements back to "nil" or some reasonable low level and reducing the initial allocation size. This is a different discussion which belongs here, but I do not reeally follow it anymore, so pardon me if I just assume it is moving along.
Agreed, And what about defining an address-range where every ISP opens its filter up to /29 (as an example) ? This would deal with both anycast and address-space conservation. Let's show that we (as ISPs) are not bound to the /24 forever ! André At 10:23 12.01.2004, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
This discussion is *not* about address policy, it really is about ** routing policy! ** The goal is to get prefixes propagated. They could live in any odd part of the address space!
Routing policy is made by ISPs. (period)
In order to provide hints to ISPs making such policy I have previolusly proposed a *registry* for "special" prefixes with some general categories like:
- root server - TLD server - second level name server - internet search engine - other important prefix (see remarks section ;-) - ....
Such a registry could be provided by the RIRs and used by the ISPs when defining and implementing their routing policy. The art here is to design the categories and to decide which ones can be policed. It is easy to determine and to check regularly if a prefix contains name servers for instance. Other categories should be "self-declaration". ISPs can then decide if and how to use such a registry.
Is this something that provides added value to ISPs? Is it something that is useful for those using such prefixes?
Daniel
PS: If getting any address space at all is a problem for these applications, this needs to be addressed. Maybe it is already addressed by adjusting the "initial" usage requirements back to "nil" or some reasonable low level and reducing the initial allocation size.
This is a different discussion which belongs here, but I do not reeally follow it anymore, so pardon me if I just assume it is moving along.
-------------------------------------------------------- Andre Chapuis IP+ Backbone Engineering AS3303 Swisscom Enterprise Solutions Ltd Genfergasse 14, CH-3050 Bern +41 31 893 89 61 chapuis@ip-plus.net CCIE #6023 --------------------------------------------------------
--On 12. januar 2004 10:23 +0100 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
This discussion is *not* about address policy, it really is about ** routing policy! **
This is actually a very good point, I personally support this view. Thanks for pointing this out. Hans Petter
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:47:27PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
--On 12. januar 2004 10:23 +0100 Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> wrote:
This discussion is *not* about address policy, it really is about ** routing policy! **
This is actually a very good point, I personally support this view.
So we should discuss things in routing-wg, and if we come to the conclusion that we like to see some special IP block to make "special" anycast assignments from, come back to address-policy-wg, right? Regards, Daniel
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:45:49AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
Google is a business.
hint: so is denic
Some might argue that DENIC is more like a lawyer's office with attached technical department. :-) Gruss, Daniel
Randy and all, Randy Bush wrote:
Google is a business.
hint: so is denic
Good point! So is Apnic, ARIN, ICANN, LACNIC, AFNIC, ect, ect, ect... The distinction comes in that non-profit "Businesses" and for-profit businesses manage, to one degree or another, "Critical Infrastructure"... Hence how a policy can be crafted that adequately recognizes this fact will be "Critical" as to such a policy being successful and/or accepted.. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
participants (8)
-
Andre Chapuis -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Daniel Roesen -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jeff Williams -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com -
Peter Koch -
Randy Bush