The SWAMP

Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no
Mon Sep 9 09:11:52 UTC 1996


> 'Deserve'?  Is this like China 'deserves' a /8?  Do root
> servers have egos that need coddling?
>
> Why do they NEED special address space?  What's the matter with
> the address space of the normal networks in which they reside?
> If there is someing bad about those networks, then they need
> fixing, and access to the root (or other) servers will be fixed
> with that change.

I will echo Randy's sentiment here: is there a technical reason
why the root name servers need special "provider-independent"
addresses, or is this a solution looking for a problem?

As far as I know, as long as one of the IP addresses in a local
name server's root hints file is correct and that root name
server is reachable, the local name server will operate
correctly.  Changes to the root hints file are currently not
terribly frequent, and updating it once per half year (or maybe
even less frequent) does not seem like an inordinately heavy
burden.

Without a technically well-founded reason for doing "weird"
things with the routes for the root name servers, you can expect
so see similarly ill-founded justifications from other folks
wanting to do the same or similar things.  As the recent events
should make evident, the last thing we need right now is creating
a precedent for spreading /32 routes or needlessly propagating
other "special-purpose" and non-aggregateable routes.

Regards,

- Havard





More information about the NANOG mailing list