Re: [GROW] ISC Response to draft-ietf-grow-unique-origin-as

[Leo Bicknell <[e-mail]>]

In a message written on Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 03:04:03PM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
> It seems to me this is VeriSign trying to document a BCP that works for
> them and may work for others.  So perhaps it is just the BCP status
> that is disconcerting?

That may be part of it.  At the risk of offending the group (since
many of them came out of here, I suspect) I believe many of the
"BCP" documents are more like "AWTDI" documents, A Way To Do It.

Look, anyone who's deployed a hundred nodes of Anycast, be it
Verisign or ISC, or any other, isn't going to change the deployment
without a really, really good reason.  If it's already deployed,
it's going to stay that way.

When writing a BCP, I think the target audence is folks who don't
do this at all.  The guy who's deploying the technology for the
first time, and looking for the wisdom of those with beards longer
and greyer than their own.  To that end, if there are three ways
to do it, each with pros and cons but no clear winner we should
document the three ways and say "pick one that fits you", not pick
one of them document it as "best" and then ignore the other two.

So the question to ask is, do we have a good reason to strongly
encourage all new Anycast deployments to be in this model, as opposed to
the alternative models?

-- 
Leo Bicknell; E-mail: [e-mail], Phone: [phone]
INOC*DBA *3357*592; Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.  www.isc.org