Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AFRINIC-rpd] policy amendment proposal

David Conrad drc at
Wed Sep 19 15:03:21 UTC 2012


On Sep 19, 2012, at 1:32 AM, Guy Antony Halse <G.halse at> wrote:
>> Since it is (relatively) easy to change unicast addresses even for TLDs,
> This is not true in practice. It should be relatively easy, but if you're
> hosting more than one CCTLD and the admin contacts are unresponsive, it can
> be nearly impossible -- it took me about two years and a lot of emails and
> phone calls to introduce an AAAA record for our name server.  If I hadn't
> wanted to do it out of principle, I'd have given up.

I understand the concern -- if you have an unresponsive TLD administrative contact, the technical contact can have difficulty getting IANA to move forward on requests.  However, I'm not sure allocating scarce resources is (should be) justification for getting around non-responsive TLD administrative contacts. I'd think a better course of action would be to make TLD administrative contacts more responsive (or, less desirably, changing IANA processes such that TLD administrative contact approval can be overridden).

> I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but the essence of this should be SLDs
> that act as registries rather than end-user delegations.  (e.g. .CO.ZW
> verses .BTC.BW).

I'm not sure I see the justification for SLDs -- presumably the problems you mention above would not apply to SLD management.  Since it is (should be) easy to change glue records for NSes, what's the value in allocating dedicated PI IPv4 addresses for those NSes?


More information about the RPD mailing list