Hi Pekka! The next paragraph is where I strongly start to disagree:

(2) this proposal takes no stance on who can request a block of addresses like this for his DNS servers?

Correct, and this is the way it should be! If someone wants to start deploying a particular _technology_ for her service, then there should be NO discussion about size, "importance", level in a hierarchy and similar things.

People could add up servers and addresses for them just for the purposes of getting nice PI prefix(es) for their DNS servers.

Just like they can buy/rent cheap end systems today to be configured on a particular network to get IPv4 addresses ;-)

Wouldn't it be nice, never having to renumber your DNS server addresses in different registries etc.

Sure :-) And?

This is short-sighted. We should restrict this approach to specific class of DNS servers, like ccTLDs or the like -- if that's the class of DNS servers where we'd intend do something like this.

This would get us (i.e. the NCC) into deep trouble: without intending to pick at a particular Zone - just to make a point - why would eg. VT. or MD. be eligible, but AC.UK. (or AC.AT. for that matter) or google.com or 3.4.E164.ARPA. would not?!

-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

We just made this mistake too often already (looking at a particular application, at a particular transmission technology[1], and the like, and hard-wiring that into resource distribution policy). The only aspect that I would accept here is characteristics or rather limitations of the DNS _technology_ and _protocols_ (and maybe others), but NOT what type of service it is used for! Wilfried. [1] like 24/8 and DSL being treated as "dial-up" when in reality (for a certain period in time) the _business model_ would have been interesting to look at, and not the technology or application...