IPv6 Advertisements

David Conrad drc at virtualized.org
Tue May 29 18:28:56 UTC 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).


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

More information about the NANOG mailing list