Maybe you can better explain to us where you draw the line of 'operational practices' vs 'requirements' Requiring IPv6, or anycast, or feature X is, in my opinion, a just that, a requirement. Operational practice would dictate HOW you fulfill the IPv6, or anycast, or X requirement. ~Carlos On 30/05/2014 13:09, manning bill wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >