IPv6 Advertisements

Paul Vixie vixie at vix.com
Tue May 29 22:24:52 UTC 2007

drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) writes:

> 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.

as one of the people who told drc that this was a bad idea, i ought to
say that my reason is based on domain name universalism.  if root name
service addresses were protocol parameters (fixed everywhere) they'd
be intercepted ("served locally") even more often by local ISP's and
governments for the purpose of overloading the namespace with political
or economic goals in mind.  this would be great for local ISP's and
governments with political or economic goals in mind, but bad for the
end users, bad for the community, bad for the internet, and bad for the
world.  right now, the people who intercept f-root traffic for fun or
profit could conceivably be in violation of law or treaty, could have
the pleasure of receiving letters from ISC's attorney, and so on.  if
root name service addresses were unowned protocol parameters used only
by convention (like port numbers or AS112 server addresses or RFC1918
addresses), then we'd see a far less universal namespace than we do now,
and the coca cola company would probably see far fewer hits at COKE.COM
than they see now.

whether drc's idea is bad depends on what one thinks the internet is.
Paul Vixie

More information about the NANOG mailing list