IPv6 Advertisements

Tue May 29 21:30:58 UTC 2007

On Tue, 29 May 2007, David Conrad wrote:

> 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).

There have been discussions of this sort made over the years.  A good 
place to start would be the old (well, maybe not that old) 6Net site where 
there's a list of publications called 'Deliverables'.  The info is buried 
in other, but amongst other things it contains deployment scenarios as 
well as cookbooks decumenting IPv6 deigns and roll-outs, and what they 
learned from it all.  Lot's to read, but good info nonetheless:

 	http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/

>
> 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
>

wfms