quietly....

Mon Feb 14 00:49:57 UTC 2011

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
> 
> 