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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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 >>>>> >>> >> >