then you won’t mind if the IETF write RFCs to dictate operational policies to
RIRs?
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 30May2014Friday, at 8:56, Carlos M. Martinez
<carlosm3011(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Actually, you got me thinking. Why not require anycast, indeed. I think
at some point it will become necessary. Maybe as a SHOULD this time.
The argument of 'operational autonomy' cannot be sacrosanct. If you
agree to provide a service that the whole internet depends on, then you
need to comply with a few requirements. If you can't / won't, well...
you can opt out.
Operating a root server is not a god-given right or burden. Just opt out
if you cannot fulfil the requirements the whole Internet needs. Some
things just come with the territory.
If, on the other hand, you operate some random email server out there,
then yes, I agree you are pretty much the king of your castle. You are
free to not do DMARC if you don't want to.
I do agree with Patrik that the enforcement part is not the IETF's
responsibility. That lies elsewhere. But past failures in enforcement
should not deter the IETF of setting the requirements the IETF deems
necessary for the correct operation of the Internet.
~Carlos
On 29/05/2014 18:24, manning bill wrote:
and why not require anycast? if your going to meddle in other companies
operations, be bold!
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 29May2014Thursday, at 14:13, Carlos M. Martinez
<carlosm3011(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
I need to clarify something here (thanks TM for spotting this).
I didn't mean to say that the IETF should require all root server
operators to provide anycast copies. I'd very much would like them to,
but there yes, I don't think the IETF can/should require that.
My comment about 'this requirement is well within...' was only intended
to apply to the IPv6 issue.
regards,
~Carlos
On 29/05/2014 17:18, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
I think there is enough consensus saying that root server operators MUST
support IPv6. I think it's hard to argue that the Internet needs this to
move to IPv6, as otherwise we'll be saying that it'll be ok for future
networks to not be able to access some root servers, or putting the
burden of supporting all IPv6 on a subset of root servers.
If you add that not all root server operators offer anycast copies, or
do it in a limited way, well, we could be putting the IPv6 internet in a
fragile position.
IMO, setting this requirement is well within the core competencies of
the IETF.
Then comes the question what to do (if anything) with those root server
operators who chose to ignore this MUST.
IMO, This is probably outside the IETF's sphere, and it should be
possible to even say so in the proposed document.
cheers!
~Carlos
On 29/05/2014 05:24, Jari Arkko wrote:
I would like every A-M.root-servers.net have an A and AAAA record.
I don't care how the root-server operators decide to partition to
workload
among hardware.
Yes, that is my view as well.
Over time we will need more v6 responders and fewer v4
responders.
I don't think that there is, or should be, any requirement that v4 and
v6 be
answered by the same system, and given anycast, they might even be in
different locations.
I think that the current text captures this just fine:
Agreed.
Jari