[102017] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 gluelessness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Jan 22 16:02:10 2008
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:39:57 -0500
From: "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>
To: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "Joe Abley" <jabley@ca.afilias.info>,
"Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <F129C3B5-8D52-4FD3-BE49-5AE309D53D5A@muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 22, 2008 2:11 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
>
> I'm quite unhappy about the trend to put everything in their own
> blocks that happen to be the longest possible prefixes. This means
> that one oversight in prefix length filtering can take out huge
> numbers of important nameservers.
>
and you have a giant confluence of number resource management and
operational practices here as well.
> We really need as much diversity as we can get for this kind of stuff.
> There is no one single best practice for any of this.
For roots? TLD? ccTLD? (is there a potential difference between the
TLD types?) Is diversity in numbers of networks and numbers of
locations per entity good enough? (.iq served out of US, Iraq, AMS on
3 different netblocks by 3 different operators ideally serviced by a
central controlling gov't entity... wait .iq changed... use .co as the
example)
Is, for lack of a quicker example: .iq 'good' or could they improve by
shifting their NS hosts to blocks outside the /16 194.117.0.0/16? or
does it matter at all because they have each announced as a /24 with
no covering route?? (so if someone fudged a /24 max prefix length
filter to /23 they'd be broken either way?)
Some of this is covered in rfc2182 anyway, right?
-Chris
