Re: 2nd Root Server in Europe (fwd)
At 13:08 20/01/97 +0000, Keith N Mitchell wrote: [snip]
I don't think there are any sacred cows for any of these here - if we adjust the LINX policy to meet requirements of the root NS rather than the other way around, I don't think we break either of 1 or 2. I don't think it breaks 3. either, but this requirement will go away when we have a route server in any case.
If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS. So, if there is a possibility that there will ever be a requirement to have different routing policy for the NS and the LINX it would seem wise to give the NS its own AS. It may be moot in as much as it's probably desireable to achieve 'root server connectivity quality' for the LINX AS, but the seperate AS for the root server would preserve some flexibility.
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997, Ian Mason wrote:
At 13:08 20/01/97 +0000, Keith N Mitchell wrote:
I don't think there are any sacred cows for any of these here - if we adjust the LINX policy to meet requirements of the root NS rather than the other way around, I don't think we break either of 1 or 2. I don't think it breaks 3. either, but this requirement will go away when we have a route server in any case.
If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS.
Why is that? Different prefixes in the same AS can be treated differently.
So, if there is a possibility that there will ever be a requirement to have different routing policy for the NS and the LINX it would seem wise to give the NS its own AS.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:22:49 +0000 (GMT) Jim Dixon wrote:
If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS. Why is that? Different prefixes in the same AS can be treated differently.
Please don't. If the routing policy is different, then the AS should be different. I don't think it's wise to do otherwise with critical resources like root nameservers. Geert Jan
On Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:22:49 +0000 (GMT) Jim Dixon wrote:
If we opt for the root NS to have its own AS then there is no barrier to people offering identical routing policy for the LINX and the NS. If it shares the LINX AS then it will be impossible to have different policy for LINX and the NS. Why is that? Different prefixes in the same AS can be treated differently.
Please don't. If the routing policy is different, then the AS should be different. I don't think it's wise to do otherwise with critical resources like root nameservers.
I would note that if there is a specific prefix and AS, then the router to support such an attachment need not be very large. This model is currently used for route servers and therouter does not have to carry full routing. -- --bill
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:49:32 -0800 (PST) Bill Manning wrote:
I would note that if there is a specific prefix and AS, then the router to support such an attachment need not be very large. This model is currently used for route servers and therouter does not have to carry full routing.
I don't think that is correct. It is likely that the router for the root-server (glad I don't need to pronounce that ;-) will get transit from multiple parties and need to do full routing as I don't think it is politically correct to default to someone. A route-server doesn't neccessary need to have full connectivity, and if it has, that connectivity doesn't have to be correctly spread among the people using it. That wouldn't be true for a root-server, would it? Geert Jan
participants (4)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Geert Jan de Groot -
Ian Mason -
Jim Dixon