Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On söndag, okt 12, 2003, at 23:04 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van 
Beijnum wrote:

>
>> Which get /32's too but for an obvious reason.
>
> Not so obvious... They need one address. What are the other 
> 79228162514264337593543950335 for?
>
> It's a shame really that people as a rule still don't get it. In the 
> old days, the  root servers had an address, and we used the named.root 
> file (wasn't it called something else back then or am I confused with 
> named.boot?) to find them. But we're doing so many routing tricks with 
> these addresses now that it makes much more sense to group all the 
> address blocks for all the roots together in a special range. Bonus: 
> we get to hardcode the root addresses now too, as we're now no longer 
> modifying the root addresses when something changes, but keep the 
> addresses and change the routing.
>


I am not following this at all.

I both IPv4 and IPv6 the root-servers use only a single address....

We need a block of some sort of size to get that that address. Most of 
the root-servers have been there so long that the address they use is 
in a /16 block or larger. That /16 might include a lot more than 
root-servers....

The root-servers addresses of today are no more hardcoded than before. 
Root-servers do change addresses, although very seldom.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP4sD8qarNKXTPFCVEQK/WgCg78FY/DHyHwwwX4XZa0/24F7OLesAnimk
Uz1RccHBoRcldtAoVE4Mqkpc
=7mmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----