quietly....

Mon Feb 14 03:51:48 UTC 2011

On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> >>> Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
> >>> are "owned" by 12 different organizations instead of being
> >>> "golden" addresses specified in an RFC or somesuch, but that gets
> >>> into root server operator politics...
> >> 
> >> there are perfectly valid reasons why you might want to renumber
> >> one,
> > 
> > Ignoring historical mistakes, what would they be?
> 
> gosh, I can't imagine why anyone would want to renumber of out
> 
> 198.32.64.0/24...

	or 198.32.65.0/24
	or 10.0.0.0/8
	or 128.0.0.0/16

(speaking of the other blocks I've had the fortune to have to renumber out of)

> 
> making them immutable pretty much insures that you'll then find a reason
> to do so.
> 
> >> the current institutional heterogeneity has pretty good prospects
> >> for survivability.
> > 
> > "Golden" addresses dedicated to root service (as opposed to 'owned'
> > by the root serving organization) means nothing regarding who is
> > operating servers behind those addresses.  It does make it easier to
> > change who performs root service operation (hence the politics).
> 
> There are plenty of cautionary tales to be told about well-known
> addresses. assuming that for the sake of the present that we forsake
> future flexibility then sure golden addresses are great.
> 
> > Regards, -drc

	well - there is an interesting take on hosting root 
	name service on 127.0.0.1  and ::1

	then you have to do other tricks, like multicast and
	new op-codes and rip out the link-local restrictions
	that Apple's multicastDNS or the ilnp proposals do...

	end of the day, you end up with a -much- more robust DNS
	w/o the whole P2P/DNS (chord) like framework.

but ... this thread has migrated far from its origins... and the mutations are
less than operational.

YMMV of course.

--bill