Re: [sig-policy] New version of prop-110: Designate 1.2.3.0/24 as Anycas
I like David's way of handling the issue that you raise.
By saying that "... it is acceptable to filter this prefix at an
administrative boundary, if an operator desires. Further, it should
be made clear it is not acceptable to advertise this prefix to the
Global Internet."
I'm interested in your comment here regarding the IXP situation.
Would 1.2.3.4 being advertised onto an IXP by a willing participant be
something that you'd see a problem with?
It would certainly be possible to place wording into the policy which
places an expectation that operators should filter this at their AS
boundary. I'm interested in whether people think this would
unreasonably restrict the benefit of some fo the use cases of this
prefix.
Dean
--
Dean Pemberton
Technical Policy Advisor
InternetNZ
+64 21 920 363 (mob)
dean at internetnz dot net dot nz
To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Mike Jager <mike at mikej dot net dot nz> wrote:
>> 4. Proposed policy solution
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> This proposal recommends that the APNIC community agree to assign
>> 1.2.3.0/24 to the APNIC Secretariat for use in the context of locally
>> scoped infrastructure support for DNS resolvers.
>>
>> At some future point there is nothing restricting an RFC being
>> written to include this prefix into the special-purpose IPv4
>> registry. However, at this time it is considered sufficient for the
>> APNIC community to designate this prefix to be managed as a common
>> anycast address for locally scoped infrastructure support for DNS
>> resolvers.
>
> In an off-list discussion, a question was raised as to what the intended definition of "locally scoped" is. My interpretation is that advertising 1.2.3.0/24 across an AS boundary would not be a wise thing to do, but I appreciate that authors may have a different view.
>
> One specific example of this related to what behaviour one might expect from an IXP's route servers. Obviously operational decisions are up to each network, but are we expecting that 1.2.3.0/24 might be exchanged between ASes, or that it would become another martian prefix?
>
> Cheers
> -Mike
> * 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