North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 Advertisements

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Tue May 29 18:31:30 2007

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