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