On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Andreas Bäß/Denic wrote:
4. Allocate /48 to primary hu DNS server that is globally routable? Are there similar to /48 from 2001:0500::/30 in RIPE region?
- I think this is the cleanest solution.
Can we discuss this issue on the working group or mailing lists?
I saw a proposal: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-2.html
In my opinion this can solve the problem....
I have not seen any discussions that think it is a bad idea to assign several network resources to TLD administrators which will enable them to operate their nameservers according to RFC3258.
When we have reviewed the discussions we felt that your objection against the proposal was because of the size of the assignment. I'm planning to submit revised proposal with a reduced prefix length which better fits with other assignment policies. If you are opposing to the new proposal I would be glad to know as soon as it is submitted.
Yes. Let me clarify my objections: 1) special policy for ccTLDs (if they do not anycast) is not IMHO needed as assignments from (some of the) transits should be enough; 2) special policy for any arbitrary service, if anycast, does not seem justified because it's too open-ended; 3) ccTLD combined with requirement to anycast it appears to be suitably well justified operationally and technically. In addition, a) we have enough address space that allocating a (v6) /32 is not waste. b) I'm strongly opposed to creating any special micro-allocation blocks which is just waiting for getting the worms out hence a). So, I'd say that if the policy proposal is 3) with a (v6) /32, I shouldn't have a problem with it. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings