On 8 Jun, 2004, at 12:17, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
In the background I had some discussions with several people what is the best wording for the policy to reflect the discussions that we had on RIPE 47.
I think the outcome of these discussions reflect pretty well what I can recall. So I would like to ask the workinggroup what you think.
"Operators providing DNS for a zone that is approaching the UDP packet size limit due to the number of authoritative servers may be assigned PI network prefixes: a /24 IPv4 prefix and/or a /32 IPv6 prefix. These prefixes will allow them to anycast the DNS server, as described in RFC 3258."
I would suggest a slight re-phrase: "Operators providing DNS for a zone served by a number of name servers such that the total response size when including the list of nameservers for the zone is close to the UDP packet size limit may be assigned PI network prefixes for the purpose of anycasting name servers, as described on RFC 3258. These shall be: a /24 IPv4 prefix and/or a /32 IPv6 prefix." Given that the issue is the will to anycast due to the operational impact of adding more servers to the list, not just the size of the NS RRSET itself. Also, pardon me asking but would the request be for a /24 per server to be anycasted of a /24 per zone administrator? Joao