Hi Shane, On 16/05/26 14:33 , Shane Kerr wrote:

Hello,

Anand just mentioned at his presentation at RIPE 72 that the RIPE NCC is now implementing RIPE 663:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-663

There were a couple of suggestions for tweaks to that:

1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be able to help them get IPv6 service if they want it.)

It is quite possible that you have come up against use cases that I am overlooking, but's not really clear to me what the added benefit would be of providing IPv6 DNS resolution for a country's TLD if there is no IPv6 support in that country and the ccTLD in question doesn't support it.

2. Gaurab mentioned that there are some ccTLD who have 3 servers but they are all in the same network. The document should be flexible in order to insure network diversity.

This flexibility is already provided by the current text of the document where it states as the second criterion: "Number and diversity of other name servers If there is sufficient diversity and there are more than three other secondary name servers for the zone already, the operator of the zone is considered to be no longer in the start-up phase of their operations." Obviously if all servers are in a single network it is fair to say that diversity is less than sufficient.

I know the document is less than 6 months old and just being implemented now, but maybe we can revise it to include these two changes? I'm happy to do a quick pass at text for this if that makes sense.

It is rather unfortunate that the proposed changes were not suggested in earlier phases of the discussion. The document has been under discussion in the WG for a very long time. Following the guidelines of the working group, we (the NCC) have recently started reviewing eligibility of ccTLDs based on the existing document text. If the document moves back to a 'limbo-state' based on renewed discussion in the WG that makes it very difficult for the NCC to proceed. Kind regards, Romeo

Cheers,

-- Shane

On 26 May 2016, at 13:33, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:

1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be able to help them get IPv6 service if they want it.)

<No hats> I disagree. If those ccTLDs want to be reachable over IPv6 there are plenty of commercial DNS hosting providers who can provide that service. The NCC does not need to provide that crutch IMO. Those ccTLDs should be making their own IPv6 arrangements instead of relying on the NCC to do it for them.

2. Gaurab mentioned that there are some ccTLD who have 3 servers but they are all in the same network. The document should be flexible in order to insure network diversity.

It already is. I quote: "If there is sufficient diversity and there are more than three other secondary name servers for the zone already, the operator of the zone is considered to be no longer in the start-up phase of their operations." Three name servers in the same network does not pass the RIPE663's threshold for sufficient diversity. That only adds up to two secondary name servers too.

I know the document is less than 6 months old and just being implemented now, but maybe we can revise it to include these two changes?

I think the document is fine as-is but will welcome text which clarifies any ambguities or misunderstandings.