> On 26 May 2016, at 13:33, Shane Kerr <sh...@time-travellers.org> wrote: > > 1. Gaurab and I think that there should be an exemption for ccTLD who > do not currently have IPv6 service. (There are a few tens of ccTLD > who do not yet have IPV6, and I would like the RIPE NCC to be > able to help them get IPv6 service if they want it.)
<No hats> I disagree. If those ccTLDs want to be reachable over IPv6 there are plenty of commercial DNS hosting providers who can provide that service. The NCC does not need to provide that crutch IMO. Those ccTLDs should be making their own IPv6 arrangements instead of relying on the NCC to do it for them. > 2. Gaurab mentioned that there are some ccTLD who have 3 servers but > they are all in the same network. The document should be flexible in > order to insure network diversity. It already is. I quote: "If there is sufficient diversity and there are more than three other secondary name servers for the zone already, the operator of the zone is considered to be no longer in the start-up phase of their operations." Three name servers in the same network does not pass the RIPE663's threshold for sufficient diversity. That only adds up to two secondary name servers too. > I know the document is less than 6 months old and just being > implemented now, but maybe we can revise it to include these two > changes? I think the document is fine as-is but will welcome text which clarifies any ambguities or misunderstandings.
