[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

On maandag, okt 13, 2003, at 21:58 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

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.

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.

Actually I think many of them use /23s. (I was going to write "in IPv4" but then it would seem there are actually root servers in IPv6, but we're still waiting for those.)

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

You are describing today. I'm interested in doing things differently tomorrow. It makes more sense to make the root addresses fixed and move the address to the server, rather than take whatever address the server happens to have and then publish it in the list of root server addresses.

See my next message on the IPv6 wg mailinglist, btw.

Iljitsch