North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: v6 gluelessness
On Jan 22, 2008 2:11 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> 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
|