[address-policy-wg] Re: allocations to critical infrastructure
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeff Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Tue Jan 13 02:45:36 CET 2004
Michael and all, Michael, this argument/debate has been hashed before on other forums, as you know because you were a participant. I see that your arguments favoring including "Anycast" in a "Best practices" document as part of a routing policy have not changed. However such arguments do not appear to yet again carry sufficient justification to be wise or even "Doable" in a practical sense. Hence leaving again such a policy as you espouse to be considered close to reasonable... Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: > >They are, but they are not even using the amount of redundancy available > >by DNS today (read: "as many name servers as fit into a minimum sized > >UDP packet full of glue"). So there is hardly an argument for doing > >anycast. > > I think that it is dangerous for a policy to force people to > follow an evolutionary path when they implement technology. If it > is considered "best practice" for a DNS infrastructure to use > anycast then we should not penalize them because they jump there > from a more primitive state. > > >The route servers use TCP, which will not work over anycast (in the > >general case - consider load balancing, every other packet going to > >a different destination machine. No problem for UDP, big problem > >for TCP) > > It is also dangerous for a policy to punish people for > evolving their technology. If it is considered "best practice" > to use anycast to publish critical infrastructure databases then > people should be able to change their services to enable them > to use UDP and anycast. > > There are many ways in which a service could be adapted to anycast, > even a session-based service. There are also non-anycast ways to solve > this type of problem, such as peer-2-peer overlay networks, that could > still benefit from having a well-known address range as a rendezvous > point. > > I really don't think that the policy needs to be a close fit for > a certain technical implementation. Instead it needs to express the > basic principle which is a non-technical principle. Then it can > provide a checklist which deal with technical questions. In the future > if the technical implementations change, it will be easier to add or > change checklist items if there is a solid principle underlying the > policy. > > --Michael Dillon Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!) "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" - Pierre Abelard "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: allocations to critical infrastructure
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]