[137467] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Sun Feb 13 19:51:18 2011
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 16:49:57 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <175BA50F-0AF0-43F3-9F96-3B4755DF8028@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
>>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being
>>> "golden" addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets
>>> into root server operator politics...
>>
>> there are perfectly valid reasons why you might want to renumber
>> one,
>
> Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out
198.32.64.0/24...
making them immutable pretty much insures that you'll then find a reason
to do so.
>> the current institutional heterogeneity has pretty good prospects
>> for survivability.
>
> "Golden" addresses dedicated to root service (as opposed to 'owned'
> by the root serving organization) means nothing regarding who is
> operating servers behind those addresses. It does make it easier to
> change who performs root service operation (hence the politics).
There are plenty of cautionary tales to be told about well-known
addresses. assuming that for the sake of the present that we forsake
future flexibility then sure golden addresses are great.
> Regards, -drc
>
>
