I agree with your ammendment to the proposal. It makes it somewhat more
sensible.
But I gotta ask why we have to pollute the world with a few more /24s.
Everybody who has introduced /24s probably thinks that their reason is
justified. Commons, meet sheep.
randy
Why do we have RAs at XPs, each taking up a potentially valuable IP
address on the XP network - and more importantly, each a potential
security risk (a Unix machine on the XP network)?
I'd say the RA machines and root servers are something of common interest,
esp. to the people who "make things go". I can't think of many/any other
examples that I'd say deserve such special treatment.
Avi
I'd say the RA machines and root servers are something of common interest,
esp. to the people who "make things go". I can't think of many/any other
examples that I'd say deserve such special treatment.
Skip RSs. They use address space from networks on which they reside,
perfectly natural and reasonable.
'Deserve'? Is this like China 'deserves' a /8? Do root servers have egos
that need coddling?
Why do they NEED special address space? What's the matter with the address
space of the normal networks in which they reside? If there is someing bad
about those networks, then they need fixing, and access to the root (or
other) servers will be fixed with that change.
randy
'Deserve'? Is this like China 'deserves' a /8? Do root
servers have egos that need coddling?
Why do they NEED special address space? What's the matter with
the address space of the normal networks in which they reside?
If there is someing bad about those networks, then they need
fixing, and access to the root (or other) servers will be fixed
with that change.
I will echo Randy's sentiment here: is there a technical reason
why the root name servers need special "provider-independent"
addresses, or is this a solution looking for a problem?
As far as I know, as long as one of the IP addresses in a local
name server's root hints file is correct and that root name
server is reachable, the local name server will operate
correctly. Changes to the root hints file are currently not
terribly frequent, and updating it once per half year (or maybe
even less frequent) does not seem like an inordinately heavy
burden.
Without a technically well-founded reason for doing "weird"
things with the routes for the root name servers, you can expect
so see similarly ill-founded justifications from other folks
wanting to do the same or similar things. As the recent events
should make evident, the last thing we need right now is creating
a precedent for spreading /32 routes or needlessly propagating
other "special-purpose" and non-aggregateable routes.
Regards,
- Havard