[96942] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Advertisements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue May 29 16:53:04 2007
In-Reply-To: <1A20D73F-F401-4047-A3A8-CC42A6ABD025@virtualized.org>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:28:56 -0700
To: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Should've clarified: this was in the context of IPv4...
To be honest, I'm not sure what the appropriate equivalent would be
in IPv6 (/128 or /64? Arguments can be made for both I suppose).
Rgds,
-drc
On May 29, 2007, at 9:34 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> On May 29, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
>>> vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something
>>> about him
>>> being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
>>> everywhere.
>> Whether it's a /24 for f-root or a /20 doesn't really make a
>> difference- it's a routing table entry either way- and why waste
>> addresses.
>
> I once suggested that due to the odd nature of the root name server
> addresses in the DNS protocol (namely, that they must be hardwired
> into every caching resolver out there and thus, are somewhat
> difficult to change), the IETF/IAB should designate a bunch of /32s
> as "root server addresses" as DNS protocol parameters. ISPs could
> then explicitly permit those /32s.
>
> However, the folks I mentioned this to (some root server operators)
> felt this would be inappropriate.
>
> Rgds,
> -drc
