Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to suppor

To: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com>, Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>, SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure
From: Raphael Ho <raphael.ho at ap dot equinix dot com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:41:53 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apnic.net; s=c3po; h=received:received:received:from:to:date:subject:thread-topic:thread-index: message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language: x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:user-agent:acceptlanguage:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zeNI4R1vwP7B1xmrKb2iW2+sVotz0lVZbzPaeSSQa+c=; b=cciu8cGoeF9d/VpjReFvhaorFC1iqLrJtY4ktjXvhK2cgu49DnvsuthGB+qotKmp2NLUrBzmv4I3V CeHMAtNSXEdcmcP/CdYReti2WqdYQoSDo2sxTe88QpmHBQclbxWWeKeGPWDNKXtebJBonkNO9hYt6J hRdEeo9VFYs9xDYs=
In-reply-to: <000BDAA2-6AC5-4D6C-9F64-83380232547F@akamai.com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/options/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CALS-_OpDgBHuAiaXD1AfS3F+UWnfcePXC3yCrnCHHZYKiDPmDg@mail.gmail.com> <m2txcrpmat.wl%randy@psg.com> <000BDAA2-6AC5-4D6C-9F64-83380232547F@akamai.com>
Thread-index: Ac8bGhvOvkjUKRtLST+YReCwGxofHw==
Thread-topic: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030

this is an interesting proposal. If the prefix is allowed out on the
public Internet uncontrolled then I have a problem with potential DNS
hijacking and other issues (and I agree with Mr Hannigan that¹s where IETF
needs to come in)

Assuming that the members agree that the prefix would not be internet
reachable, do we want expand the scope of the proposal to ³Any service
with local-only significance within the autonomous system², and not limit
the use? I can see some other interesting uses that would not require
global routability, but need slightly more flexibility/reachability than
the usual RFC1918 space.

On 27/1/14 12:26 pm, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com> wrote:

>
>
>That and isn't the IETF the right venue to carve out a specific from a
>/8? This is in effect global policy, isn't it?
>
>
>On Jan 25, 2014, at 8:24 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>
>> and why won't this leak and make confusion?
>> 
>> randy
>> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>>      *
>> _______________________________________________
>> sig-policy mailing list
>> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
>    *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy