Re: [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments. I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago). This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin! At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote:
Ondrej, in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal here in the next couple of weeks.
Regards
Brett Carr
Nominet UK
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý <<mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz>ondrej.sury@nic.cz> wrote: Hello everybody,
I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour).
We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD.
First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable.
Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC.
And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list.
1. <http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2>http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1
If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal.
Ondrej -- Ondøej Surý technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <http://nic.cz/>http://nic.cz/ <mailto:sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz>sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Greg L. <bgp2@linuxadmin.org> wrote:
Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments.
I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe.
I think that the term Critical Infrastructure speaks for itself really doesn't it, without scalable and stable DNS deployments at the TLD level the businesses you refer to would be at risk because of their parents potential instability. I guess it depends on what you define as Critical Infrastructure, I am just talking about ccTLD/gTLD and ENUM registries/entity getting allocations for Anycasting their TLD DNS servers, by definition these are not in competition with businesses who are not in the TLD arena and therefore I don't believe there is a 'fairness' issue.
This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago).
I'm interested to know what has changed in this area in the last 5 years and why you consider the fairness has changed?
This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin!
Well of course they are free to use ARIN space if they are able to meet their allocation policies. Brett
At 18:09 2008.11.17.t Cá', you wrote:
Ondrej, in the light of the comments on my proposal for ENUM anycast assignments discussed in Dubai, I was planning to write a revised policy proposal to go through PDP, I will be taking action on this as soon as the minutes/webcast from Dubai are available. I think it's safe to say we are working towards the same/similar goal and I think it's important that we don't both do the same work. I will have a first draft of my proposal here in the next couple of weeks.
Regards
Brett Carr
Nominet UK
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Ondøej Surý <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> wrote: Hello everybody,
I would like to post unformal proposal before writing official policy modification proposal (and/or having discussion tomorrow on Open Hour).
We would like to see policy for IPv4 and IPv6 modified to allow /24 *minimum* for IPv4 and /48 *minimum* to gTLD/ccTLD.
First reason behind this is that one PI is not really enough and it's blocking us to deploy more DNS servers and make our TLD service more reliable.
Second reason is that if we deploy more Anycasted DNS servers we could keep (or drop down) number of NS records for TLD, so we could manage to keep DNS reply size low even with DNSSEC.
And last, but not least, it would be good to keep this synchronized with other regions (see [1],[2]). Note: we may also extend the list of requestors to: Root DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, IANA, RIRs. Which I think is reasonable list.
1. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#2-4-2 2. http://www.nro.net/documents/comp-pol.html#3-4-1
If there is at least some consensus, I am willing to write official policy change proposal.
Ondrej -- Ondøej Surý technický øeditel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <ondrej.sury@nic.cz> http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz <sip%3Aondrej.sury@nic.cz> tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Greg, 2008/11/17 Greg L. <bgp2@linuxadmin.org>:
Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments.
It does not provide 'more advantage", RIPE policy provides just 'exactly ONE /24 IPv4 prefix and exactly ONE /48 IPv6 prefix' and it's not enough if you want to provide reliable infrastructure for TLD.
I don't see a reason why more resources should be allocated to a specific group/entities named under "Critical infrastructure" category that still compete with businesses that are unable to get /24 BGP anycast assignment for DNS solutions from Ripe. This is not fair (it was a bit fair when gTLD and ccTLD started out 5+ years ago).
All these other businesses relies on services provided by ccTLD/gTLD, that's why. ccTLD/gTLD operation is almost as important as root servers operations. Certainly there are some categories of TLDs according to number of registered domains, but I would like to avoid a discussion about how much domain you need to have registered to be allowed to have /24 anycast prefix. Other reason could be that this would align RIPE policy with other RIRs policies.
This is why many European companies prefer Arin's IP space. Welcome to Arin!
I am no ARIN policy expert, but from what I remember there is no special policy for other businesses in ARIN policy. But there is a special policy for 'critical infrastructure' and TLD DNS operators is already using that. Now that's unfair, we are basically punished for being in RIPE region, since you can get more anycast prefixes from all other RIRs. And please note that most of European TLDs are unable to move to other regions because of legal stuff. It's much easier to get legal status in US if you are private owned then if you are not-for-profit. Ondrej. -- Ondřej Surý technický ředitel/Chief Technical Officer ----------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- .cz domain registry Americká 23,120 00 Praha 2,Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ sip:ondrej.sury@nic.cz tel:+420.222745110 mob:+420.739013699 fax:+420.222745112 -----------------------------------------
Hi, On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 04:55:22PM +0200, Greg L. wrote:
Current IPv4 already provides more advantage to ccTLD and gTLD with IPv4 /24 prefix allocations for BGP anycast than for other business entities that would like to get /24 prefix for BGP anycast DNS deployments.
Well. I have not yet seen a specific proposal coming from a company that explains what they are doing with anycast and that is *not* running a *TLD (or ENUM). So who are you, what are you doing, and what would be your proposal how to amend the policies? (If you're happy with Arin space, be my guest - less work for us) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (4)
-
B C -
Gert Doering -
Greg L. -
Ondřej Surý