Hi Mike, 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) [email protected] To promote the Internet's benefits and uses, and protect its potential. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Mike Jager <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
