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

To: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai dot com>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-110v001: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycast to support DNS Infrastructure
From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized dot org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:19:17 -0800
Cc: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
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:received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from: in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ppzDr63n3U0k8jRLbOgNwhZcS6Qe0lE6tipdjE5UW64=; b=iuv1k5EmHFhNvOSWdfB1MJhiij1xT3QCHgsDZAEgx/zdgQbY2wh/yHFQbgJ3H7njcs7E7PrzEFUgk i1nBgSuElL54Nu8A1IOhWA+77cyhV2j5oz5Xi1XeuWbScbWBHvPBIuELb0PSHgxTTrD58uR5EPyG7Y M5E3OXS6wq8bGdJk=
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>

> 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?

I suppose APNIC could throw it back to IANA (maybe? not sure how an RIR can throw a /24 back to IANA -- perhaps that needs a global policy too?) who could, after a couple of years after a global policy is established, put that prefix into the IPv4 special registry.

However, in the meantime, is there a problem with APNIC declaring it "anycast to support DNS infrastructure" now?

> 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?

You mean more than it is leaking and causing confusion now?

Regards,
-drc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail