William F. Maton Sotomayor
wmaton at ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
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:
> 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
>>> 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.
More information about the NANOG