'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
Isn't the argument of the non-default routing tables growing by an additional 13 entries or not is specious noise? The routing bucket is leaking through bloody great open chasms and we are wondering about the incremental damage throuigh a pinhole! The more critical issue in this conversation is the assumption that the Internet world has so completely transformed itself into a classless world capable of full permeation of /32 routes that we can push the DNS root name servers off the classfull cliff. I know we've tried the experiment with the 39 prefix, but I for one am not happy with the robustness of this assumption in today's Internet. thanks, Geoff
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.
I should probably not answer this since it has likely been answered. The tradeoff is one of a small number of well known routes that won't change vs periodically updating an increasingly large (20-20 million+) root hints files.
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.
- Havard
Cisco Routers are going to fail, regardless of what we do with regard to controling routing table entries. We'll hit that brick wall soon and will bounce off and move on. -- --bill
participants (3)
-
bmanning＠isi.edu -
Geoff Huston -
Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no